Maria Eagle: The former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Lord Falconer made a statement on 25 June 2007 about a £400 million investment in new courts in England and Wales. My hon. Friend might be interested to learn that the Her Majesty's Courts Service asset management committee considered a strategic outline case for a new courthouse in Newport on 23 April 2008. Further work is now required before a final funding decision can be reached.

Tony Baldry: Is it not the reality that the chief inspector of prisons has said that there is insufficient purposeful activity in prisons and that he assessed no closed male prison as performing well? Could the Minister provide or put in the Library the statistics on the amount of purposeful activity in each of our prisons so that we can see which prisons are performing well and which are not? These questions have a sort of "Groundhog Day" quality about them. Until we try to work out who is doing well and who is not, we will continue to go around this track.

Maria Eagle: I absolutely refute the charge that any complacency whatever is displayed by the Government or by Ministers in the Ministry of Justice in respect of prison suicide and self-harm. We are working extremely hard with the Prison Service staff and those in safer custody units across the prison estate to try to minimise the impact of self-harm, suicide and self-inflicted deaths on individuals, many of whom are extremely vulnerable and go into prison with risk factors. It is a complex area. I do not believe that there is any direct evidence that overcrowding in itself leads to increased numbers of deaths, although clearly some aspects of overcrowding can lead to increased distress in individual circumstances. These are individual matters, but it is absolutely not the case, and I refute the suggestion, that the Government or the ministerial team are complacent about the matter.

Jack Straw: My principal responsibilities are to help protect victims and the public, to secure a reduction in offending and reoffending, and to promote a rigorous democracy. I am delighted about the contribution that the agencies for which my Department is responsible have made towards a further significant reduction in crime, which was announced last Thursday. We are the first Government since the war to have secured a significant reduction in crime, rather than the continual increases in crime that took place under previous Administrations.

Jack Straw: My Ministry has achieved a considerable amount in the past year, including a dramatic reduction in crime, as I mentioned just a few minutes ago—if Conservative Members paid attention, such nugatory questions would not have to be put by their Front Benchers. There has been a third reduction in crime, including a third reduction in violent crime— [Interruption.] I am asked what contribution we have made, and I have mentioned exactly that contribution, because we are responsible for about half the criminal justice system.
	I am delighted to say that at long last the Leader of the Opposition has accepted, under questioning, that that reduction in crime, which he had been denying, has happened. He was asked in a BBC interview whether overall crime figures were falling and finally he said, "Yes—absolutely, absolutely." On that occasion, if on no others, he was dead right.

David Howarth: May I return to the report on Anthony Joseph, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) raised earlier? Does the Secretary of State agree with the report's conclusion that there was nothing to suggest that Joseph was suffering from a severe mental illness? After all, serious concerns had been raised about Joseph's mental state since he was 15, and he had reported self-harm to the prison authorities—itself a warning sign. Moreover, the fact that prisoners are 10 times more likely to suffer from severe mental illnesses than members of the general public means that simply being in the system is another warning sign. Does not the case show that there is an urgent need to ensure that resources are directed, not to massive prison building programmes, but to mental health screening and treatment?

Mark Pritchard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 13 March, I received a written ministerial reply on the important issue of animal experiments. In the reply, the Minister referred to pygmy gorillas. I have conducted searches and spoken to zoologists throughout the world, and there is no such creature or species as a pygmy gorilla. I do not expect the Minister to be a zoologist, but I do expect his accurate and up-to-date ministerial replies. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Norman Baker: Department for Transport written answers relating to Network Rail tell the Member who asked the question to write to Network Rail. As a consequence, the answer subsequently provided does not appear in official records, whereas other external bodies provide answers through Ministers, which are therefore recorded officially. Will you, Mr. Speaker, take the matter up with the Department for Transport to ensure that the record is available to all, not simply to the Member who asked the question?

David Heath: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order 24, to debate a specific and important matter that requires specific and urgent attention, namely,
	job losses at Butler and Tanner in Frome, a book printing company of national and international reputation.
	Over the weekend, 287 employees of Butler and Tanner were sent letters, informing them that they had been made redundant with immediate effect and that the company would go into liquidation. In a town the size of Frome, the loss of 300 jobs is a serious blow, and it is not the only factory closure in the west country in recent days. Butler and Tanner is a highly respected firm that is more than 150 years old. It does the highest quality colour book printing, was awarded the title "Book Printer of the Year" last year, and in recent years it has printed books by Delia Smith, Nigella Lawson and the BBC "Planet Earth" series. A year ago, it was taken over by a venture capital company, Media and Print Investments. Mr. Mike Dolan, the chairman of MPI, in an extraordinarily intemperate press release, blamed the closure entirely on the threat by the trade union Unite, which represents two thirds of the work force, to take strike action in response to new contracts.
	We need a debate to ensure that, first, staff receive their due pay and pension entitlements. Mr. Dolan says that suppliers will be paid, but that workers
	"will be paid by the government."
	Secondly, we need a debate to ensure that all the appropriate agencies work together to find new opportunities for re-employment, and, thirdly, to investigate the circumstances of the closure. I do not know the details of the impasse between the management and the unions, but I know that ACAS talks were continuing in good faith. Meanwhile, Mr. Nolan was preparing to issue redundancy notices and, earlier in the week, he had already warned security staff that they would be needed over the weekend.
	The staff of Butler and Tanner have been notably loyal for many years. They have made sacrifices: they took an 8 per cent. pay cut last year, and offered a 5 per cent. cut this year to keep the company going. They have been treated shabbily. I am also alarmed by the conjecture that, having closed the company, MPI might create a phoenix company using Butler and Tanner assets, but a non-unionised work force. That is more redolent of a Victorian mill owner than a modern industry, and I deplore the suggestion.

Mr. Speaker: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order 24 and I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.

Greg Clark: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about roaming by mobile phone users between telephone networks within the United Kingdom; to make provision about the sharing of transmission masts; and for connected purposes.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, think back to the last time you went overseas. The chances are that you took your mobile phone. Think of the number of times you lost coverage as you went from one spot to another. That happens infrequently on the continent of Europe because one is transferred seamlessly from one network to another whenever the signal from the home network seems to falter. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you think of the last time you made a significant journey in the United Kingdom, whether by rail or road, how many times was a conversation cut off outside London?
	In this country, mobile phone companies restrict people to their networks without transferring them to where signals are strongest and best. It is not as if we have blanket mobile phone coverage in this country—only 65 per cent. of the population is currently covered by all four 2G mobile phone companies. That figure drops to 28 per cent. in Wales, an area that several of my hon. Friends represent. Given that we do not have blanket coverage, it is worrying that we do not allow people to access the optimal coverage to which they should be entitled.
	The Bill is simple and would achieve two things. First, it would allow mobile phone subscribers in this country the right to roam. If their home network did not offer a strong signal, they would be flipped automatically to the next strongest available signal. Secondly, it would encourage mobile phone operators to share masts throughout the country so that they had the same equipment.
	The Bill's benefits are firmly and unashamedly in the interests of consumers, and would transform mobile phone reception overnight. Gone would be the interrupted conversations, such as those that I experienced when travelling the 15 miles between Tunbridge Wells and the county town of Maidstone last Friday. Both towns are less than 40 miles from London and only 15 miles apart, yet I was cut off five times. There is no reason for the existence of five black spots. The Bill would correct that and we would move overnight from having 65 per cent. to 98 per cent. coverage of the population because 98 per cent. of the United Kingdom has at least one mobile phone company serving it.
	The figures would be even more dramatic in rural areas. In Wales, the coverage would increase from 28 per cent. to 90 per cent. I daresay that coverage in Scotland, too, would increase. That would mean a transformation in the services enjoyed by rural communities throughout Britain.
	The Bill would benefit people throughout the United Kingdom, especially those in rural areas, not only because of immediate uptake but because it would provide a strong return on the investment in new masts in areas of sparse population. If a mobile phone mast has to be erected to serve the subscribers of only one network, it may not be worth it. However, if all four network subscribers can benefit, the economics are transformed.
	The Bill also has advantages for urban and suburban areas because, rather than having four separate masts, often side by side, thus blighting the landscape of our towns, cities and suburbs, mast sharing and roaming would allow mobile phone operators to share a single mast and reduce the environmental impact.
	Last but not least is the important effect on safety. It is important, in the event of an accident or if people feel vulnerable, especially if they are in remote areas, that they can make a call home or to a loved one if a signal is available. Scandalously, save for 999 calls—this shows that it is technologically possible—it is not possible for subscribers to one mobile phone company to use the signal of another, even when incidents occur that create insecurity. That is especially threatening to women, and we should give greater protection to women travelling in remote areas.
	In the past 24 hours, I discovered that the problem can be even more significant. I have been contacted by someone with responsibility for disaster and emergency control who pointed out that, when incidents such as catastrophic storms occur, engineers and rescue teams can be reliant on a mobile phone network that has been put out of action.
	I have been told of a rescue team having to buy SIM cards from an overseas phone operator in order to get the roaming in this country that it would expect in order to have that degree of resilience. Indeed, the minutes of a West Sussex county council safety committee record that a
	"key lesson...from the train derailment at Grayrigg in February 2007"
	was that the
	"train company's communication system was dependent upon the Orange network, but this network was disrupted because its cables ran alongside the railway line where the accident had occurred. This highlighted the need to have broader mobile phone coverage".
	It is time to act before further tragedies are made worse by poor communications.
	What are the arguments against my proposal? They cannot be technical arguments, because the fact that we can roam whenever we take our phones to the continent or make 999 calls shows that my suggestion is perfectly possible. It could be argued that companies want to compete on the basis of their extensive network coverage. However, 3G companies are obliged to offer at least 80 per cent. network coverage, so we have already made a public policy decision that broad coverage is in the interests of consumers. Why should rural communities be the only ones to lose out?
	It could be argued that it is important that phone companies should make a return on their investment in masts. However, roaming and the use of masts would not be free of charge; rather, a fee would be paid for the use of competitors' masts. Those companies that had invested most extensively in masts throughout the country would therefore enjoy the greatest returns.
	The argument against my proposal is nothing to do with constraints in competition law, either. In fact, T-Mobile and O2 proposed precisely such a roaming agreement in 2003, to cover those parts of Wales that suffered reduced coverage. That was cleared as being pro-competitive by the European Commission. The arguments against my proposal therefore fall away.
	There is nothing to stop my proposal being taken up. In fact, there is already a precedent, in ATMs. It is no longer the case that someone who wants to use a Barclays ATM in a village needs to be a Barclays customer. NatWest customers can use it, too. We have interoperability of ATMs; we should have exactly the same for mobile phones.
	My Bill would not compel mobile phone companies to operate in that way; it would encourage them to do so. Sometimes we need to stop immediately short of legislative solutions that rely on compulsion. However, if the Bill enjoys the support of the House today, I hope that it will send a signal to the mobile phone operators, the regulators and the Government that the House favours that direction.
	A former Chancellor of the Exchequer once told the House that mobile phones were a scourge of modern life. I am not sure about that, but we can at least accept that they are a fact of modern life. Customers should not be prevented from having the best possible network coverage, and they should be allowed to move into the modern world.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Greg Clark, Mr. Stephen Crabb, Mrs. Maria Miller, Nick Herbert, Mark Pritchard, Gregory Barker, Mr. Robert Goodwill, Mr. Tobias Ellwood, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, Mr. David Ruffley and Dr. Andrew Murrison.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 17, page 25, line 21, leave out '2008' and insert '2009.'.
	I suspect that the debate will be relatively short—the Committee has a heavy agenda—but it is timely. Hon. Members will agree that we could not let the opportunity pass of discussing something that touches on arrangements for the Mayor of London and the Greater London assembly when that is very much in the public eye.
	There is much activity ahead of Thursday's London mayoral election. One blog that I read this morning even reported that shredders working overtime in the basement of City Hall were responsible for blowing its electrical system and causing the basement to flood. Whatever is going on in City Hall—it will be interesting to discover just how many documents have been shredded and how many computer hard discs have been crushed—it is clear that as the Livingstone regime draws to an end, the Labour party is determined to look after the soon to be ex-Mayor, which is as clear a demonstration as we could ask for that it has written off his chances on Thursday.
	Amendment No. 17 is probing. It gives us the opportunity to raise important issues and, hopefully, to gain an understanding of the Government's thinking on this specific measure and, perhaps, slightly wider issues. Unless the Financial Secretary sorely provokes me when answering my questions, I do not expect that I will press it to a Division.
	Essentially, four separate questions arise out of clause 49 and the amendment, the first of which is whether severance payments should be made to the outgoing Mayor of London. I understand that that is not the practice for other elected mayors. The Government have come under pressure from representatives of councillors throughout the country—I think that the body is called the Councillors Convention—to extend arrangements for severance payments to elected members of local authorities. Do the Government have any plans to extend the availability of such payments, or is this a Ken special and what Brian Paddick has referred to as
	"Labour looking after its own"
	This House granted powers to the Greater London authority, in the Greater London Authority Act 2007, to set up a scheme for termination payments. In the spirit of devolution, therefore, we have to accept that the decision is no longer ours, but one for the assembly. The assembly must account for that decision to its electorate, who were promised, when the assembly was set up in 2000, that the cost of the Mayor and assembly together would be 3p a week to each council tax payer. Under the Livingstone regime, the spin doctors, publicity, staffing, jollies, jaunts and left-wing jamborees have spiralled out of control, so that the non-borough council tax element in London is now three times higher than it was in 1997-98. A £70,000 payment to the ex-Mayor on his departure will make his going entirely in keeping with the manner of his occupation of the office.
	The second question to be addressed, which is more directly relevant to this Committee, is whether the payment should be given tax-privileged status. The measure brings the treatment of a severance payment to the Mayor into line with that of termination payments to Members of Parliament. However, I note that a Mayor aged between 55 and 64, with three years of service, will get rather more than twice as much as an MP of a similar age who has completed a similar length of service.
	When I looked into the statute underlying this issue and the arrangements for Members of Parliament, I was surprised to discover that the resettlement grant is payable to Members whether or not they achieve office. As I understand it, a Member who retires is treated in the same way as one who offers himself for election but fails to be elected. I understand that a similar arrangement will be in place for the GLA. The payment is not so much the equivalent of a redundancy payment in the private sector, but a payment that will be made in all cases to a Mayor when standing down. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister will correct me, but that is what I have gleaned from the papers published by the House authorities and from my understanding of the GLA scheme.
	The general rule is that redundancy payments of up to £30,000 are not taxable if they are ex gratia—if they are not provided under the terms of the contract of employment. Interestingly, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has been seeking to widen the definition of what is provided under a contract of employment to include not only what is provided for in the specific terms of a contract, but benefits that are provided on a routine or customary basis upon termination. Employees have long been able to argue at tribunal that something has been customary in their employment, so it is understandable that HMRC now seeks to extend that logic to attack payments that are non-contractual, but customary, on termination of employment. Given that the Treasury controls HMRC, it is unclear to me why, on one hand, it seeks to limit the scope of the £30,000 exemption while, on the other, it proposes to extend it in this Bill.
	I am certainly not arguing that Members of Parliament should have special treatment which should not then be available to others. Indeed, as I have said, I was surprised to discover that the practice of granting tax-free status extended to payments irrespective of whether the Member had suffered an involuntary redundancy, as it were. Why are payments like this given favourable statutory tax treatment when any other termination payment has to be defended on a case-by-case basis against the Revenue? It is not clear to me why Members of Parliament and Mayors of London should be offered statutory protection from such a challenge.
	If we believe that this discrimination between the treatment of politicians and that of everyone else is indefensible—and having now studied it, I think it is—why on earth are we extending it? Surely two wrongs do not make a right. If we are uncomfortable with the current regime, should we really seek to extend it to include the Mayor of London? Perhaps there is a specific reason for defining the tax treatment for MPs in statute, and then a specific reason for extending such treatment to an outgoing Mayor of London. If so, I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of the thinking behind that logic.
	The third question is a matter of the timing—hence amendment No. 17 to change the commencement date of this provision from April 2008 to April 2009. I have assumed that the measure before us is not technically hybrid, but there is something uncomfortable—this is not specific to the current, about-to-be former, Mayor of London, but a more general point—about dealing with public legislation that specifically benefits a defined individual or small group of individuals. It means that the merits of the measure inevitably cannot be considered in isolation from the debate about the merits or demerits of the individual or individuals concerned or the manner and circumstances of that individual's going. I thus ask the Minister whether we should put this change clearly beyond any hint that it could benefit any specific individual currently at risk of receiving a termination payment.
	The fourth question is whether there should be a rethink about what is or is not tax-free on termination. I understand that the Liberal Democrats have tabled a broader amendment that looks at the tax treatment of termination payments more generally, rather than just how to deal with Members of Parliament or Mayors of London, so the House will have an opportunity to reflect in further detail when that amendment is debated. It raises the interesting issue of the Government's general view on this area of taxation of income.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of the thinking behind this clause, particularly of why the Government are proposing to extend the statutory tax relief. I look forward to hearing clarification of whether the Government have any plans to extend it further to any other parts of local government, clarification of the Government's view on the tax treatment of MPs' resettlement grant payments, and perhaps clarification of the wider issue of the taxation of termination payments.

John Redwood: I do not wish to use this opportunity to refer to the present Mayor and to try to have last-minute influence over an election in which many of our colleagues are probably participating on the streets as we speak. I wish to raise the issue of principle. We face a public expenditure crisis in this country; the Government have overspent, and they are borrowing too much, taxing too much and spending too much money on purposes with which the public do not agree. The proposal before us today is another small example; it is an extension of payment in tax relief to former Mayors should they lose office, one way or another. It legislates not only for one Mayor or one particular payment, but for all future Mayors of London.
	I do see the mayoralty of London as a mayoralty; it is the mayoralty of by far and away the biggest city in the United Kingdom. However, the Mayor of London is only one of many mayors of London, because there is a mayor of the City of London and a mayor of the city of Westminster, and there are many borough mayors. Most important local government in London is still carried out by the boroughs, rather than by the rather grand Mayor that was created more recently. It is difficult to see how one can sustain the argument that if it is fair to have severance payment for the grand Mayor of London, no severance payment is offered to the mayors of the individual cities in London, who are, in many ways, responsible for bigger budgets and more important services; they are responsible for education and social services, unlike the overall Mayor of London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has said from the Front Bench, it would be difficult to say that the mayor of Manchester or the mayor of Birmingham should not be given something similar.
	I have a challenge for the Government: why do they think that, in the middle of this crisis of over-taxing, overspending and over-borrowing, this is a worthy clause on which to spend more public money? Why do they think that they can hold the line at saying yes to the Mayor of London, but no to the other mayors in London and to the mayors of other great UK cities? They will find it extremely difficult to hold that line.
	Let us examine the question of justice and the contrast with the arrangements for Members of Parliament. We live in world in which people often come into the House of Commons at a much earlier age than they would expect to become an elected mayor, and they might be a Member of Parliament for 20 or 30 years. If they suddenly and abruptly lose their seat—perhaps in circumstances outwith the control of individual Back Benchers, because of the performance of their party or Government—one can see how that could prove a dreadful disruption to their lives. They may not be especially well known or have alternative skills, because they have put everything into their life as politicians. That is why that rule, which is unpopular with the public, was introduced, and people stood for election knowing that it was the rule.
	It is very different with the Mayor of London. Again, I do not wish to personalise the debate, but I point out that anyone who stood last time round knew that that was not the rule. Why is it fair to change the rules after the election? If such a rule were thought necessary, it should have been introduced at the time that the mayoralty was established and before we had any idea of who would be the first or subsequent Mayor of London.
	The other difference is that the mayoralty of London has turned into a celebrity activity, certainly as conducted by the first Mayor. We have already heard from the current Mayor that were he to lose, he thinks that he could have a good life appearing on chat shows and writing articles. I do not think that anyone who has an exciting enough personality to become Mayor of London would be short of a penny or two, should the electorate terminate their contract. They would become famous—

Jane Kennedy: The severance scheme was set up under the GLA Act. Extending tax exemption to the scheme in the way that is envisaged would keep the scheme in line with others that we have mentioned. That was always the intention of the Act. The hon. Gentleman picks me up on a slightly loose use of the word "bound", and I take his point.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the cost to the Exchequer. The cost is so small that, under usual budgetary cost accounting procedures, it is counted as zero in the Finance Bill, hence my earlier point. The total cost this year for six members standing down is about £151,700. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) asked whether I had details of the budget; I do not have those details to hand, but I will write to him on the subject when I have had the chance to consider his comments in detail in  Hansard.
	The clause is designed to settle the tax treatment of the resettlement grants that may be paid to the Mayor or members of the London assembly if they cease to hold office at the time of an election. The amendment would mean that the clause could have no practical effect until the 2012 elections. It would also mean that the first payments under the scheme were wholly taxable as earnings, rather than treated as termination payments, the first £30,000 of which are tax-exempt. That would be unfair and churlish, given the treatment of Westminster MPs and Members of the devolved Assemblies. I hope that the current Mayor of London continues in his post for many years and has no need to avail himself of the measures, but I do believe that the Committee should put the measures in place. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw his amendment.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in clause 90, page 51, line 12, leave out from 'acquisition' to end and insert 'as a zero-carbon home.'.
	No. 4, in page 51, line 12, leave out 'occupied' and insert 'acquired by a buyer'.
	No. 14, in page 51, line 12, at end insert—
	'(2A) In section 58B omit subsection (6).'.
	No. 20, in page 51, line 26, at end add—
	'(8) The Treasury shall, by regulations, define a "zero-carbon home".
	(9) Regulations under subsection (8) must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that all new homes should be zero carbon by 2016.
	(10) Regulations under subsection (8) shall be made by statutory instrument.
	(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (8) may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
	(12) Regulations under subsection (8) shall be laid not later than 31st December 2008.
	(13) On the coming into operation of regulations under subsection (8), regulation 5 of the Stamp Duty Land Tax (Zero-Carbon Homes Relief) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/3437) shall cease to have effect.'.

Justine Greening: Amendment No. 21 replaces amendment No. 4, which should have been withdrawn from the Order Paper.
	The Government and the Chancellor claim to be concerned about the environment. In this year's Budget statement, the Chancellor said:
	"our greatest obligation to the future must be to tackle climate change."—[ Official Report, 12 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 295.]
	The Government claim that they want a meaningful reduction in the UK's carbon emissions and that their zero-carbon homes initiative will kick-start the market for new, highly efficient technologies in homes. They talk about how the policy will set a gold standard for green homes.
	I do not think that we are quite there yet, so my amendments are a helpful start. They try to explore and challenge whether the Government's zero-carbon policy, as it stands, can ever be truly fit for purpose. Amendment No. 21 aims to clarify what could be an ambiguity in the current drafting of the policy. Amendment No. 20 aims to prevent a likely problem from occurring, which, if not stopped, could really damage the Government's chances of meeting their already challenging ambition of ensuring that all new domestic homes are zero-carbon by 2016. We Conservatives also support that target.
	Let us not forget that the zero-carbon homes policy was enacted by regulation only eight months ago, in October 2007. Even so, Treasury Ministers are already changing their own policy, less than a year after it went through Committee. In October 2007, the original statutory instrument specifically excluded flats and maisonettes from being eligible for the relief. At the time, my hon. Friends and I questioned the sense of that exclusion; we now know from later statistics that nearly half of all new homes built in Britain are flats.
	Just months later, by the time of the Budget, the Chancellor was already announcing that, after all that, the zero-carbon homes policy would be extended to include flats as well as houses. We very much welcome yet another adoption of a Conservative proposal and I hope that my amendments today will, similarly, be adopted—although without the eight-month delay. I have no doubt that the Government's ambition, which we support, for zero-carbon homes by 2016 will be better achieved if the amendments are adopted.
	Amendment No. 21 is a redrafting of new subsection (2)(b). It aims to define better and more carefully what constitutes a first acquisition. My understanding is that the provision is drafted to ensure that stamp duty relief may be claimed only the first time a home is bought. During our debate on the statutory instrument in Committee, the Minister responding said that extending the relief to second and subsequent sales would provide no value to the taxpayer. However, the proposed Government definition in the Bill covers a dwelling that
	"has not previously been occupied."
	In practice, that could allow for multiple stamp duty land tax relief claims on the same property, if that property were sold again but never occupied in the meantime. For example, somebody could buy a newly built zero-carbon dwelling from a developer for their elderly parent to live in. They would gain stamp duty relief from the developer because their parent would not yet have moved in, although they were planning to; the residence would never have been occupied. Under clause 90, if, unfortunately, the elderly parent died prior to occupying the dwelling, the next purchaser would presumably also be allowed to claim stamp duty relief, as the home would still not have been occupied. The amendment would clarify the definition of a dwelling in respect of providing stamp duty relief to mean one that has not previously been acquired. It would remove the ambiguity of the current drafting and would deliver the Bill as the Government intend it.
	I can imagine no objection from the Minister to amendment No. 20. It simply provides an insurance policy—that there will be a clear definition of a zero-carbon home by the end of the year, just as the Chancellor promised in the Budget. Crucially, amendment No. 20 would also require the Government to use a consistent definition of what constitutes a zero-carbon home across Departments, in a joined-up way. That definition would have to be approved by the House, and any anomalies between the definition arrived at after the summer's consultation and the existing definition in the relevant Treasury statutory instrument would have to be identified. Those differences could then be debated and voted on, so that a single, workable definition could be achieved.
	The lack of joined-up government between the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government is a critical failure, as it means that we still have no clear definition of what a zero-carbon home is—even though the Government first announced their policy on such homes in December 2006. That means that, by the time a single policy is arrived at, it will have taken more than two years to get the definition that we need.
	The Government say that the aim of stamp duty relief on zero-carbon homes is to stimulate demand for such homes, but it is almost inevitable that the present uncertainty, as long as it exists, will hold back both demand and supply. How can industry and buyers aim for a target when that target's definition is not established or keeps changing? No wonder there is so much uncertainty in the building profession. The Government have told builders and developers that they want all new homes to be zero carbon by 2016, even though they—the Government—do not know what that means. That is why they are having to launch a fresh consultation.
	A recent survey by the National House-Building Council found that most of those surveyed did not know what a zero-carbon home was. The lack of explanation and education about zero-carbon homes means that, according to the council, there is a
	"distinct possibility that purchasers will decide against buying newly-built, low carbon properties."
	Another cause of uncertainty in the existing Treasury statutory instrument needs to be resolved. It is not clear whether the energy required to power day-to-day appliances used when a zero-carbon house is finally occupied can come from renewable sources via the national grid, or must come from a renewable source connected to the property directly and exclusively by private wire. I think that that is what the statutory instrument suggests, and it would be helpful—certainly for the building industry—if the Minister can clear that confusion up.
	Even if we succeed in tying down the Treasury definition of a zero-carbon home, there are other dangers with the approach announced in the Budget. By the end of the year, after the consultation process, we will have a new definition of what constitutes a zero-carbon home, but that definition may well be different from the one contained in the statutory instrument. Any such difference would be even more confusing and damaging: for instance, developers might develop, build and market new houses in the quite proper belief that they were meeting the definition of zero-carbon homes agreed after the consultation, whereas buyers might not be aware that those homes did not fulfil the Treasury definition of zero carbon for stamp duty relief purposes. That is a recipe for unhelpful uncertainty, and it is certainly no way to kick-start the market.
	Under amendment No. 20, the Treasury definition contained in the statutory instrument would be amended to ensure consistency with the final definition agreed following the summer consultation proposed on page 105 of the Red Book. Getting rid of the uncertainty matters, but the signs are that designing and developing zero-carbon homes will be a challenge.
	So far, the Government's stamp duty relief policy has been less than impressive when it comes to kick-starting the market. In the eight months between the start of October 2007—when the statutory instrument giving stamp duty relief on zero-carbon homes came into force—and the end of March this year, a grand total of just 10 homes qualified for zero-carbon stamp duty relief. In fact, there were six homes last year and four this year, with just one in March, so the run rate of zero-carbon homes qualifying for stamp duty relief seems to be tailing off, if that would have been thought possible at the end of 2007. Given the lack of homes that are qualifying for the relief, will the Minister enlighten us as to the carbon savings that have resulted from the zero-carbon homes that have qualified so far? What research is the Treasury doing to find out whether the stamp duty relief for zero-carbon homes, as it currently operates, is really making a difference to buyers' behaviour?
	I have a suggestion for the Minister. Given that so few people have qualified for zero-carbon home stamp duty relief so far—just 10—what about getting them all down to Westminster to have a round table discussion about these issues? There are so few of them that it would be perfectly feasible. If she would give me their contact details, I would be happy to organise that meeting so that we could all learn from the minimal transactions thus far—or perhaps we could do a conference call, which might be more environmentally friendly. I would be happy for the Minister to sit in on that.
	There is a serious point here. We need to understand which people and which homes have already qualified for the relief. Are the people claiming the relief major developers who have just sold their first prototype building to someone and are perhaps therefore in a position to start being able to mass-produce, which would clearly be very good in terms of reaching the 2016 ambition; or are they, as I suspect, individuals who are keen to play their role in tackling climate change and have had themselves a zero-carbon home built to a more individual specification, which may suggest that we are less likely to see mass production of such homes? I would love to be able to sit down with those people and talk to them about whether they felt that the current stamp duty relief policy had influenced their behaviour in relation to buying a zero-carbon home and, if not, what policy would have positively influenced their behaviour in order to cut emissions further.
	I must question the Minister about whether the Treasury's zero-carbon home stamp duty relief policy joins up effectively and more broadly with the ambition of the Department for Communities and Local Government to have all homes built as zero carbon by 2016. I have discovered through parliamentary questions that the 10 zero-carbon homes that have qualified for stamp duty relief so far were all in a 1 per cent. stamp duty band, which means that they probably had an average cost of £187,500. We can therefore broadly assume that their average stamp duty would have been 1 per cent. of that—£1,875. If so, the £15 million budget set aside to fund the policy from now until 2012 will fund a total of 8,000 homes—fewer than 2,000 a year. If we are to hit our zero-carbon homes ambition by 2016, we should by then be building 240,000 zero-carbon homes a year. These things do not seem to match up with one another. When I questioned the Minister in the statutory instrument Committee when the regulations first went through the House, she was unwilling to explain how the £15 million budget had been arrived at. I am pretty confident, and perhaps she can confirm, that the assumptions behind that budget were that 8,000 homes within the 1 per cent. band were receiving an average of £1,875. Will she have yet another go at clarifying the underlying assumptions as regards the £15 million that is currently set aside for the policy?
	Perhaps the Minister could also confirm that the original budget of £15 million was set in 2007—before this year's Budget announcement allowing flats also to qualify. If nearly half of all new properties built are flats, we should have expected the Treasury to double the amount set aside for the policy. Instead, as far as I can see, it has added no new money whatever to pay for the relief, suggesting an assumption that the Budget change in 2008 will have no impact on the amount of relief it expects to be claimed. Again, that does not make sense.
	That brings me to my final point. As with vehicle excise duty changes in the 2008 Budget, which the Government now admit will make no virtually no impact in reducing CO2 emissions, the zero-carbon homes stamp duty relief policy came with much fanfare, but as far as the behaviour change it desires to achieve is concerned, it seems destined to fail. Even the Government have said that they expect the original stamp duty relief policy on zero-carbon homes to reduce emissions by 1.6 million tonnes by 2020, when household emissions in 2006 already stood at 155 million tonnes. In this year's Budget, Treasury Ministers did not even try to pretend that they thought that the Budget would cut emissions. Page 107 of the Red Book describes the environmental impact of the zero-carbon homes change to include flats. It states:
	"Small reduction of carbon emissions."
	Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary can tell us just how small.
	Yet again, a Budget measure has been announced that is designed to reduce carbon emissions, but is in reality a shambles. We have no definition for zero-carbon homes, no idea of the real budget needed by the stamp duty relief policy, no idea of the number of homes that will claim relief and no idea of the reduction in emissions that the policy will lead to. The Treasury may talk a good game when it comes to environmental taxes, but its rhetoric is way ahead of its practice. The only way that things will get better is under a Conservative Government because this is not zero carbon—it is zero credibility.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for that intervention because that takes me—you will be relieved to know, Sir Alan—to the amendments that the Liberal Democrats have tabled. They try to widen the scope of consideration so that the Government do not concentrate only on new homes, which are clearly important, but focus on the UK's housing stock as a whole. In any given year, roughly 1 per cent. of the houses occupied in the United Kingdom will have been built in that year, while 75 per cent. of houses in 2050 will have been built before 2007. If we concern ourselves solely with newly built houses, we will address the situation only incrementally.
	Indeed, I would like us to go much further in that regard, too. It distresses me that large new housing developments are built on the edges of towns throughout the country with the car in mind. It is hard for the people living in those houses to buy a pint of milk or beer without getting in their cars. Such developments are often built without shops, pubs, village halls, churches, post offices or other amenities, which people cannot reach without driving a car. The houses are quite well insulated, but they could still incorporate large numbers of building features that would improve their carbon emissions.
	There is a lack of ambition among builders in that regard. However, if we neglect the existing housing stock, we will not tackle the problem with anything like the urgency that it requires, particularly given the interesting cultural dimension in this country, whereby people often aspire to live in older houses. People in the United States, for example, would think that the best house that one could buy would be a brand new one, in the same way that people in this country would, by and large, like to buy a brand new washing machine, car or whatever else.
	The most expensive and desirable houses in the United Kingdom are often those built, say, 200 years ago. There is not quite the market drive towards new house building in this country as there is in some countries. Whether because of a cultural or social dimension, it is seen to be desirable to live in an older house, often with not very well insulated windows, for example. We therefore need to turn our attention to how we improve such matters.
	I am not the only person who takes that view. In the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government report, "Existing Housing and Climate Change", the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), the Labour Chairman, called for a
	"much clearer focus on what must be done to bring existing housing up to required energy efficiency standards".
	She also said:
	"We need the Government to go further and do much more to help householders radically cut carbon emissions from their homes, whether they were built in 2007 or 1707."
	That is the position of my party, too. We have put forward large numbers of policies to try to accelerate the level of home insulation, as well as other measures that can be put in place to try to reduce CO2 emissions both in Britain's existing housing stock and in newly built houses. That is the scale of the ambition that we urge the Government to adopt. We have no problems with the measures in the Budget; we just think that they do not go far enough.

Rob Marris: The speech that the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) gave was interesting, as is her amendment No. 20. Unfortunately, however, as sometimes happens, she leavened her speech with too much righteous indignation. I will bear that in mind when I think of the reports of the views of Conservative party activists on eco-towns, for example, which the Government are putting forward and which are so important.
	I want to distinguish between the construction and the occupation of new properties. If we are talking about zero carbon, the first thing that I would like to do is change the terminology. It is a little late for that, because the terminology is already in statute, from the Finance Act 2003, but we are almost certainly not talking about zero-carbon homes. Rather, we are talking about zero-CO2 homes. I venture that almost no home will be built in the United Kingdom in the next 100 years without any carbon in it, because wood is carbon and the architraves around the doors, if nothing else, are likely to remain wood.
	The reason I stress that point is that it highlights the use of language and whether we are talking about emissions when we talk about zero-carbon homes—I will use that phrase, because it is in the legislation already and in the proposals before us. However, we need to distinguish between emissions from the construction and emissions from the occupation of such homes. That is why amendment No. 20 is interesting. Indeed, I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary says about definitions and the need for definitions.
	I find it difficult to envisage the construction of a new home in the United Kingdom in the next 20 years involving zero CO2 emissions, if only because for many years to come it is quite likely that some of those building the home will drive to the site in a car fuelled by fossil fuels, not by electricity. They will use electric saws to cut wood, and sometimes electric concrete mixers, and some of the electricity might well come from fossil fuel. We might move to mass renewables. We could move to nuclear, but the building of nuclear power stations involves CO2 emissions. Construction workers might drive to the site in a vehicle powered by electricity from a renewable resource and plug in rotary saws that are powered in the same way. A consideration of zero CO2 emissions during a home's construction depends on how far one wants to take things towards the absurd. If we are to avoid reaching an absurd situation, the definitions must be clear and we must distinguish between construction and occupation.
	On the occupation of houses, should we require those seeking the tax exemption to guarantee that their washing machine will be run only on electricity from renewable resources? How far should we take things when we consider zero CO2 emissions for occupation? I am worried that we will move towards bringing into the equation CO2 offsetting, which is one of the biggest boondoggles around. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) has mentioned in the Chamber—wittily, as usual, but quite rightly—that there is an adultery offset website. Allegedly, the person behind it is a rather spotty youth from somewhere like Plymouth called Kevin. He agrees to remain chaste and not to engage in sexual relations—certainly not adultery—so that someone who signs up to the website can engage in adultery absolutely guilt free because of the adultery offset— [ Laughter. ] That might produce a laugh, but it highlights some of the problems with CO2 offsetting. Although this is being exposed, CO2 offsetting is often a complete con. It is said that Coldplay chose 10,000 trees in somewhere like Indonesia to carbon offset one of their world tours, but that all the trees were dead.
	I raise this point regarding the definition of a zero-carbon home under amendment No. 20. Will CO2 offsetting come into the definition on the occupation side of the equation—when someone is living in the house—and when measuring whether the occupation leads to no net use of CO2? We need tight definitions and a clear political direction, preferably with cross-party consensus, to determine exactly what constitutes a so-called zero-carbon home.

John Redwood: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening). Her amendment makes a lot of sense, and I hope that the Minister will simply concede that. I am sure that the Government intend the tax exemption to be available only on the first sale-and-purchase transaction. The drafting in my hon. Friend's amendment would ensure that rather more accurately than the drafting in the Bill, so it would make sense to accept it.
	Like the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), I wish to concentrate more on amendment No. 20 and what constitutes a zero-carbon home. I approach the issue from the proposition that it is better to try to change people's conduct using tax incentives than through tax impositions or compulsion. The principle in the amendment is therefore welcome. It is right that the Government should try to address emissions related to the home environment as well as transport emissions. We well know why that is important: many more of the typical family's emissions come from the family home. The problem is a difficult one, but it can be addressed using a series of incentives and proposals, of which this would be just one.
	I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Putney's worry that the measure will have a small impact. Part of the reason it will have a small impact is to do with the definition, which lacks clarity about what is a zero-carbon home. There might be a feeling out there in the marketplace that zero-carbon homes are unachievable, and that we should move our targets to what might better be called low-carbon homes as technology develops and the marketplace responds. That is what we do with motor vehicle manufacturing, the regulation of which is tightened progressively over the years, so that each generation of cars is successively better. As a result, exhausts have been cleaned up, and there have been changes regarding the production of fuel to give a certain level of performance. We could have a similar trajectory with housing and the improved performance of our homes, preferably through an incentive scheme.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West rightly said that the zero-carbon home of the Government's imaginings is not truly zero-carbon because the construction process will entail a certain level of carbon dioxide emission. He could add to his list the emissions of vehicles used on a site to dig the ground and move the earth, as well as any pile-driving and concrete mixing required to provide the foundations and a stable platform on which to build.
	Another aspect of all building processes that causes, perhaps, even more carbon emissions is the manufacture of building materials. Most of the building materials going into a typical British house have been produced using energy-intensive processes. The cement industry is a big energy user, as is the brick industry. That consideration needs to be fashioned into a policy. Although it will be good news for those who wish to cut carbon emissions if homes can be constructed that emit few or no carbon emissions, it will not be such good news if the building materials used to achieve that degree of insulation and that carbon-free standard were produced using energy-intensive methods or if they had to be transported quite far. Such homes would take many years to break even on the carbon account.
	These issues are difficult. Carbon accounting is a rudimentary science at the moment, and all too many people considering it think that there are silver bullets and easy answers. They think, for example, that stopping people driving would make the problem go away, but it would not. The issue is more complicated than that. All sorts of processes and circumstances involve carbon dioxide emissions, and a sophisticated carbon account is needed before sensible policy conclusions can be reached. I hope that the Minister will produce rather more sophisticated research—perhaps not today but in the months ahead, as this policy develops—so that we can have a better idea of what the true carbon account would be on a so-called zero-carbon home. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide a little more definition today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney requested. If the policy is to have any chance of working, the wider world, interested in building new homes, needs a clearer idea of what is required, and we need a clearer idea of whether it is achievable.
	I would regard as a failure a policy under which only 10 homes qualified in more than half a year, and, if I were a Minister, I would regard it as my important duty to tweak and change it until I had a decent number of homes coming forward, so that I could claim that the policy was some kind of success. I put it to the Minister either that it is a problem of persuading the market that what she has in mind can be done—the Government are meant to be good at putting out messages through the media—or that perhaps more work needs to be done on the sort of home that is envisaged, working in conjunction with the industry, so that we can roll out a policy for the hundreds and thousands rather than the one and twos as we seem to have at the moment.
	I think that a stamp duty tax break is a very attractive tax break, as stamp duty is very high on the more expensive houses and still a lot of money on the relatively cheap houses because house prices have increased so much. We would expect to have something for the expenditure of tax revenue forgone; we do not seem to be getting it at the moment, so I hope that the Minister will use amendment No. 20 as an opportunity to clarify and improve the definition so that it delivers on the carbon front, taking into account the production of carbon in building the house as well as in subsequently living in it, as well as delivering the number of homes needed to fulfil the targets.

Brooks Newmark: I am delighted to return to the subject of stamp duty exemptions on zero-carbon homes, as provided for under clause 90 and the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening). I have some interest in the issue, having been fortunate enough to encounter it during the Committee stage of last year's Finance Bill and, by happy coincidence, when I joined my hon. Friend during the subsequent debate on the statutory instrument in December. Some members of the Committee may also have been present last year and will remember that we had great fun in the debate, largely at the expense of the then Economic Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton (Ed Balls). However much we teased him and laughed at his ability to tie himself in knots, there was a broad consensus that we wanted the policy to work in practice.
	Stamp duty is a considerable expense for anyone trying to get on the housing ladder and last year's revenues reached some £6.4 billion—a 40 per cent. increase on the previous year. It is quite right for the Government to seek to influence behaviour by reducing some of the burdens of that huge rise in taxation. In that respect, the potential benefits of the policy are wrapped up with how it is perceived by home buyers—and, of course, home builders.
	In the same constructive spirit, I welcome the change proposed in clause 19, which will extend the relief to registered flats—something that I asked for when we debated the statutory instrument and the then Economic Secretary gave the Government's favourite answer: that it would be reviewed. To give credit where it is due—it is right to do that sometimes—it has not only been reviewed but acted upon and duly extended, so I am delighted that once again the Government seem to be listening to the Conservative party; but it is a shame that neither the Economic Secretary nor the Chief Secretary, who I am sure would have been particularly well briefed on the subject, could be here for today's debate. It is a shame because there is already a sense of discontinuity creeping into the way in which the zero-carbon homes agenda is being dealt with and there is a sense in which the Government's lofty aspirations are not being matched by the reality of delivery.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has already mentioned, parliamentary questions have done what endless questions in Committee could not: they have elicited the number of zero-carbon certificates that have actually been issued. Unfortunately, it is a very small number indeed—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made that point. Will the Exchequer Secretary update us as to what is the latest number?
	That matter worries me less, however, than does the caveat that appears at the end of a couple of parliamentary answers. As the Exchequer Secretary stated in one of them:
	"We expect the number of qualifying transactions to rise as more properties eligible to claim the relief go on the market."—[ Official Report, 19 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 1223W.]
	I am sure that the number of transactions will rise given that we are starting from a very low base, but it seems that the Government expect some magic exponential effect to occur, and they always seem to expect it to occur soon rather than now.
	Last year, the then Economic Secretary proposed the same kind of optimistic but ill-defined acceleration as is now appearing in such parliamentary answers. He said—in the way that only he can—that
	"there will be a non-linear, progressive, accelerating build-up over time on the basis of which we will get to a figure of 200,000 by 2016."—[ Official Report, 26 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 198.]
	However, he also admitted that the pace of the acceleration depended on the definition that was adopted for zero-carbon homes.
	I do not wish to plough the same ground too many times, but the Government have never given satisfactory answers in the repeated questioning over the costing of this measure. There still seems to be a disparity between the £15 million that was set aside for stamp duty rebate and the 200,000 houses that the Government aspire will benefit from it by 2016. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney made that point in her excellent speech at the beginning of the debate. Can the Minister confirm the total value of the stamp duty land tax relief for new zero-carbon homes that has so far been claimed, and whether that figure fits in with the projected cost to the taxpayer of £15 million by 2011-12? Moreover, since clause 90 extends eligibility for the relief to flats, may we have an updated costing? It will, presumably, be in excess of £15 million, but by how much? I ask that as there does not appear to be a figure in the Red Book that reflects the extension.
	Given the low initial take-up, the ongoing scepticism about the definition, the uncertainty over costing, and the damage that all this does to the public perception of the policy, do the Government propose to undertake a full review of the operation of the policy in its first six months, and will they publish the results? We called for regular such reviews last year, but the only information on progress since then has been provided by sporadic parliamentary questions. The Government's seemingly boundless optimism cannot compensate for lack of detail on how the policy is working in practice and how it is expected to evolve over time.
	I shall now return to the question of the public perception of the zero-carbon standard. The National House-Building Council Foundation has recently published a research paper entitled, "Zero carbon: what does it mean for homeowners and housebuilders?" which presents a detailed investigation of public expectation and reaction. The first challenge that the Government face is that only 4 per cent. of those polled had any knowledge of the stamp duty exemption that we are discussing today. The NHBCF also suggests that that is unsurprising, given the very low uptake revealed in parliamentary answers. If the policy is to be a success, awareness and uptake will need to feed off each another, and raising awareness is a huge challenge. Part of the reason for these issues is simple scepticism about what the standards mean, what they will cost to implement and how they will affect homebuyers' lifestyle choices.
	The NHBC Foundation's chairman, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), stated in the report's press release:
	"It is vital for homebuyers to actually want to live in zero carbon homes if they are to be a successful reality. If this does not happen, there is the distinct possibility that purchasers will decide against buying newly-built, low carbon properties."
	The report found that home owners tended to view the 2016 zero-carbon aspiration as laudable, but did not believe it to be at all realistic.
	Furthermore, home buyers tend to view energy efficiency in stark economic terms; if it saves them money, they will buy it. For example, nearly half those polled were open to the £700 additional cost of meeting the code level 1 standard, because it generates savings of about £50 per annum, but fewer than one in 10 believe that a £400 saving is sufficient return on the £35,000 additional investment needed to meet the code level 6 standard, which reflects a true zero-carbon home. If the cost of qualifying for the zero-carbon stamp duty exemption is an additional £35,000, as the Government estimate, and the maximum stamp duty rebate is £15,000 on a £500,000 property, clearly a significant amount of additional cost must still be met from elsewhere.
	Perhaps that gap explains why opinion on the house builders' side is, if anything, less favourable. Although there is widespread awareness of the code for sustainable homes, the report found that
	"the perception of the industry is that, whatever the merits of the Code itself, it is being severely undermined by the muddled and incoherent way in which the Code agenda is being driven."
	The construction industry will ultimately determine whether the zero-carbon aspiration is a success or a failure. When confidence in the 2016 target was assessed, only 26 per cent. of house builders polled believed in their technical ability to deliver the standard and just 14 per cent. had confidence in the commercial sense in doing so. The following quote from one builder is indicative of the tone of the study:
	"I have no confidence in it whatsoever. We are currently involved in building a Code Level 6. If the Government expects Code Level 6 houses in 2016 with the technology that's available today then there won't be any houses built in 2016. It's so complex and expensive."
	That is the background to this issue, and it is the challenge that the Government must meet. The process of meeting that challenge is not helped by the level of uncertainty surrounding both the zero-carbon standard and all the Government's sums, which are contingent on it. Perhaps that is why the report concluded that many builders wanted to pause for breath at the code level 4 standard, and that they tended to view the huge additional investment required to create a genuine zero-carbon home as impractical and inefficient.
	The Government have committed to review the operation of the stamp duty incentive in 2012, which is midway between now and the 2016 deadline for all new homes being zero-carbon. May I draw the Minister on whether the Government will reconsider offering graded reliefs to properties that meet one of the intermediate code levels but are not strictly zero-carbon? Such an incentive structure might help builders to commit to further costly investment in new technology.
	The Budget announced new pump-priming funding for a new 2016 delivery unit to guide, monitor and co-ordinate the zero-carbon programme. That is welcome, but will the new unit have within its remit the ability to re-evaluate the operation of the incentive structure? Even more importantly, will the unit act decisively to end the confusion about the zero-carbon standard?
	The NHBC Foundation found, rather like the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), who had his own non-linear, progressive, accelerating build-up to this point, that
	"some confusion does exist, however, with the fundamental issue of what 'zero carbon' actually means".
	That is the focus of today's debate. I appreciate that the draft Stamp Duty Land Tax (Zero-Carbon Homes Relief) Regulations 2007, which the House approved in December, had been amended to bring them in line with the code for sustainable homes and that issues like connection to gas mains were cleared up. Nevertheless, there is evidently still a degree of confusion within the industry, which is why it is paramount that the Government act quickly.
	One house builder in the NHBC Foundation study is quoted as saying:
	"The Building Research Establishment...assessors do not know whether a 2016 carbon neutral home is carbon neutral for the whole house or is it just for the energy and lighting in the house. If the BRE assessors don't know, how are the housebuilders supposed to know?"
	The Red Book does include a commitment—in the Treasury's usual and modestly named "utopia-regular" font—that a definition of a zero-carbon home for the purposes of the 2016 ambition will be forthcoming at the end of the year following further consultation. But that being so, I see no reason why the Government will not accept amendment No. 20, which would commit them to laying regulations on the long-term definition before the House by the end of December.
	This policy and its associated definitional problems have now had a very long gestation period and things are still changing in fits and starts. In its first six months of operation, the stamp duty exemption has been used a mere handful of times. Nevertheless, it has already been the subject of one backdated statutory instrument, in December, and now another backdated clause in this Bill to extend its remit. We have now debated it several times and come at it from so many angles that I am beginning to feel as though this is groundhog day.
	Every month that goes by without certainty is a month in which the confidence of the building sector and the general public in this policy will be further eroded. This policy is becoming the very definition of spin over substance. The time has surely now come to make a commitment in the Bill to get the long-term definition right once and for all, and I welcome our amendment to that effect.

Angela Eagle: Yes, that is my understanding. Clearly, the delay was caused by checking how common parts and other issues could be dealt with to maintain a definition of zero carbon that was robust enough to qualify for the relief. Again, that was done to ensure that silly mistakes are not made in new areas. The hon. Lady had fun criticising the Government for not including such provision originally, but the work had to be done to find out whether it was doable in principle, and I think that she welcomed the extension to flats under the clause.
	The clause will also create the power to introduce regulations that permit Departments that are carrying out an assessments of whether homes meet zero-carbon standards to charge reasonable fees for providing such a service. Regulations that provide for fees will be made immediately after Royal Assent has been granted to the Bill. The clause will amend sections 58B and 58C of the Finance Act 2003 to ensure that the relief from stamp duty land tax for new zero-carbon homes introduced in October 2007 is extended. The relief will apply to any new flat that meets the stamp duty land tax zero-carbon standard that is bought from 1 October. Therefore, if any new zero-carbon flats have been built since the introduction of the relief, they will be included.
	As with new zero-carbon houses, the relief will provide for the complete removal of stamp duty land tax liabilities on all new zero-carbon flats up to a purchase price of £500,000. If the purchase price of a flat is in excess of £500,000, the stamp duty land tax liability will be reduced by £15,000. The relief will help us meet our 2050 climate change targets by encouraging house builders to build homes that are more energy efficient and that maximise renewable technology. The stamp duty land tax incentive is designed to help to kick-start the market for new methods and to support the 2016 ambition of all new homes being built to a zero-carbon standard.
	The hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) was under the impression that there were two definitions of zero carbon. In fact, there is only one Government definition. The Treasury definition and the code for sustainable homes definition are the same. The Department for Communities and Local Government will consult in the summer on the 2016 definition of zero carbon, but we believe that larger developments can meet the current definition and that it is harder for small city infill developments to meet it. Clearly, when practical issues to do with the definition come to our attention, it is important that we are flexible in how we respond, so that we do not disadvantage particular areas.

John Redwood: That just shows the muddle that the Liberal Democrats are in. On the one hand they say that they want to join the Government and the official Opposition in trying to expedite people getting this tax relief for the purpose of enfranchisement, and in his next breath the hon. Gentleman says that it might not be a good idea to let them have that freedom because they might make a mess of it. Once again, we see that the Liberal Democrats do not actually believe in freedom at all. They do not believe that people are intelligent or able to make their own decisions; they believe that they have to micromanage decisions from Parliament. It would be even better if the Liberal Democrats got out of their muddle by agreeing with the Government and the Opposition. People should have the right to enfranchise their lease and buy the freehold, and they should be able to do so free of tax. We could then say to all those seeking to interpret the will of the House that the whole House was united, not just the two major parties.
	I would like to make one new point during this brief debate. While Ministers are trying to get the right legal advice and put the right form of words into the necessary provisions so that the will of the House five years ago and now can be properly enforced, they could have a word with the Revenue, which is becoming far too aggressive. Given that it is the House's intention that such transactions should be exempt, the Revenue should not be pursuing and hounding people by taking up cases at considerable expense, with much legal advice, against the clear wish of the House of Commons that such transactions should be exempt. That would give a little more time for those who wish to get on with their lives and buy their share of the freehold, while the Government's lawyers get their act together and introduce the necessary wording.
	It beggars belief that it has taken more than five years to carry out something relatively straightforward such as giving the leaseholders of Britain the opportunity to buy a modest share of their freehold for a modest sum without buying taxed as if they were multi-millionaires carrying out a big transaction. I hope that Ministers will soon find a way to do so.

David Gauke: It is a pleasure to speak on the issue of penalties. As with so much in this year's Finance Bill, we have to go back to last year's Bill to gain a full understanding, although I suspect that we shall not see quite the same drama that we saw in last night's debate about income tax.
	Schedule 24 of the Finance Act 2007 introduced a single new penalty regime for incorrect returns in respect of income tax, self-assessment, pay-as-you-earn, corporation tax, capital gains tax and VAT, which involved a common structure of stepped penalties depending on taxpayer behaviour. The provisions of schedule 24 of the 2007 Act were broadly well received. Those who can recall last year's debate will remember the concern about the expression "HMRC think", which was contained in the first draft of that Bill, but which was thankfully amended by the Government following representations from all parts of the House. However, there was little dispute about the common structure of stepped penalties.
	Schedule 24 of the 2007 Act addressed only the main taxes, as they were described, and did not try to cover all taxes. Its provisions are only now coming into force, so that they will come into effect only for returns or documents due to be sent to HMRC on or after 1 April 2009. HMRC says that the new penalty regime is already having an effect. However, given the stage that we are at, it seems far too early to jump to any conclusions about the effectiveness of schedule 24 of the 2007 Act.
	None the less, the Government seek to extend the regime set out last year. We question the timing of that. Two logical positions could be taken on the matter. The first is that it is confusing to have two different penalty regimes for errors in tax returns and therefore right to move to one common structure as quickly as possible. That could be described as the big bang approach to penalties, if that is not overdoing it. The alternative is to take a more gradualist approach, by seeing how the new system works, extending the approach in stages by a process of trial and error, learning as we go along, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and imposing a new system of penalties for tax returns over a number of years.
	Both are acceptable positions and there are arguments for adopting either. However, in attempting to take two different approaches, the Government appear to be in an inconsistent position. In the 2007 Act, the Government did not seek to apply the new penalty regime comprehensively; instead, they just picked out the main taxes and left the rest. That would indicate the gradualist approach. However, long before the existing provisions come into force and it is possible to assess the effectiveness of schedule 24 of the 2007 Act, the Government are seeking to expand the regime to a new set of taxes, as we see in schedule 40 of the Bill. The taxes include inheritance tax, stamp duty, stamp duty land tax, petroleum revenue tax, insurance premium tax and a wide range of duties.
	Over the course of a year, the Treasury and HMRC have gone from a gradualist approach to one of trying to impose a single regime as soon as possible. However, clause 117(3) allows different days to be appointed for different provisions, so things might not work out like that and some taxes might be treated differently over time. If the Government had wanted to introduce all the measures as quickly as possible so that different regimes were not running simultaneously—I acknowledge that there is an argument for doing so—we must ask why they did not do that in 2007 by applying the new penalty regime more broadly. I hope that the Financial Secretary will address that point. It appears that the Government changed their mind during the past few months and I should be grateful for an explanation of why that happened.
	The Government also seemed to change their mind in a rush. "Modernising Powers, Deterrents and Safeguards: Penalties Reform—The Next Stage", HMRC's consultation paper, was published only on 10 January. It is rumoured that it would have been published earlier, but that it was delayed because of HMRC's difficulties due to the missing data discs. Perhaps it would have been too embarrassing for HMRC to consult on the penalties that it would impose on taxpayers for errors when HMRC itself had been guilty of the most horrendous errors.
	It is worth noting that annexe A of the document contains the consultation criteria in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform code of practice. The first criterion states that a consultation should
	"Consult widely throughout the process, allowing a minimum of 12 weeks for written consultation at least once during the development of the policy."
	The consultation closed on 6 March, just eight weeks after the document's publication on 10 January. Why was that the case? If it had closed any later, it would have finished after the date of the Budget—12 March—and, clearly, announcing the policy of extending the penalties regime while the consultation was still under way would have been too obvious. The credibility of the consultation was undermined because the consultation period ended on 6 March and, just six days later, HMRC published board notice 96, in which it announced the Government's plans to legislate.
	The consultation document stated:
	"HMRC would welcome views on...extending the penalty regime...to incorrect returns for other taxes".
	Six days after the date for submitting those views, it announced that legislation would be introduced in the Finance Bill 2008
	"to create a single penalty regime for incorrect returns"
	across all taxes, levies and duties administered by HMRC. HMRC might well have welcomed views on the subject, but it is difficult to believe that as much consideration was ever going to be given to views that conflicted with what the Government seemed determined to do in the first place. There are plenty of stories that Treasury officials were burning the midnight oil in the run-up to the Budget and that there were all sorts of last-minute changes, but I suspect it is unlikely that the intense review of submissions to the consultation on penalties was the reason.
	It has not been a good winter for HMRC consultations. Draft legislation on non-doms had to be corrected mid-review because it was already damaging the UK's reputation. The consultation on income shifting was so widely castigated that plans to introduce measures were withdrawn. The consultation on penalties might not have been in the same league for controversy, but its timing—eight weeks, not 12—and its completion six days before the Government announced their policy, gave every impression that HMRC was simply going through the motions. That concern is shared among various professional groups. That is not to say that there is no support for the proposals; indeed, the principle of a single system for penalties has many supporters. However, serious points of substance were raised during the consultation.
	I do not intend to get into a detailed debate about schedule 40—we will return to that in much greater detail upstairs—but it is worth briefly highlighting the concerns raised through the consultation process to show that there are issues to address, as I think that the Minister accepts. In such circumstances, a hurried consultation was far from ideal.
	I shall outline several of the concerns. The proposals involve penalties that are based on underlying behaviour. That is widely supported, but the Institute of Chartered Accountants, for example, believes that there is a problem with differentiating between prompted and unprompted disclosure for one-off taxes, such as inheritance tax and stamp duty, compared with the situation for taxes that are paid repeatedly, such as income tax or corporation tax.
	A third-party penalty for incorrect inheritance tax returns was raised during the consultation process by the ICA, which said that it was not convinced by the Government's proposals, and the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which had strong reservations about penalties on third parties generally. The Government have moved on that point, but worries still exist. The ICA raises an important concern that proposals on penalties for failure to notify might discourage persons operating in the shadow economy from regularising their position. Both the CIT and the ICA raised the issue of suspended penalties. There are substantial issues for us to debate, but I think I have demonstrated that important points were raised in the consultation process, so it is not good enough to steamroller through the measures. Given the limited time allowed for consultation, our assessment and evaluation upstairs will be all the more important.
	I welcome you to the Chair, Sir Nicholas. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

David Gauke: Yes, as I said earlier, the Government's code of conduct states that consultations should last 12 weeks. However, it simply was not possible to do that and to get everything done before the Budget, when the policy was announced. That raises the question whether we are rushing into this somewhat. My hon. Friend makes a helpful point.
	There is further evidence that the matter has been rushed. The Financial Secretary wrote a letter dated 24 April to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, about the powers under clause 117(4). Her letter makes the point that HMRC is still working through old legislation to work out what consequential amendments need to be made to that legislation in what is, admittedly, a complicated area. That prompts us to ask, again, why legislation is not ready at this point. The fact that it is not suggests that there is a rush.
	Having highlighted several issues of substance that we need to debate, let me point out that the consultation timetable has made it difficult for the Government to respond regarding the latter two substantial points—on penalties for failure to notify and suspended penalties. We would be in a much better position to assess the validity of those arguments if we knew how the regime for main taxes that was introduced in the Finance Act 2007 had bedded down. If we were able to see how that had worked over a given period, we would be able to see whether there is a strong argument on these points. But we do not have that opportunity, because the Government wish to proceed much more quickly with extending the penalty regime.
	Amendment No. 1A would give us the chance to pause and reflect, thus enabling us to see how schedule 24 works out in practice. It would also give the Government more time to consult properly—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) has pointed out, they consulted for only eight weeks—and give a genuine response that does not look as though it has been ready to print, regardless of the submissions that have been made. Amendment No. 2A would require the use of the positive resolution procedure to implement schedule 40, which would give the House a proper opportunity to debate this matter again.
	We do not criticise the Government for seeking to introduce a single penalty regime. However, given last year's decision to do that in one go, the Government should pursue this matter carefully, by listening to the concerns of professional bodies, assessing the measures that they have introduced and examining the effectiveness of those measures before acting. Amendment No. 1A would enable them to do precisely that.
	Amendments Nos. 4A and 3A—particularly 3A —address another concern that several bodies have raised: that subsection (4) seems to be what is sometimes described as a Henry VIII clause. I learned the definition of such a clause only today, from the first report of Session 1992-93 of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers, which I had not read before. It states that a Henry VIII clause is
	"a provision in a Bill which enables primary legislation to be amended or repealed by subordinate legislation, with or without further Parliamentary scrutiny."
	I do not pretend that it is the first time that such a clause has been used, but its use is a matter of concern. Subsection (4) states:
	"The Treasury may by order make any incidental, supplemental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision which may appear appropriate in consequence of, or otherwise in connection with, Schedule 24 to FA 2007 or Schedule 40."
	Subsection (4) is extraordinarily broad. We must put that in the context of the Prime Minister's statement last year that he was looking for a
	"new British constitutional settlement that entrusts more power to Parliament".—[ Official Report, 3 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 815.]
	The measure seems to take power away from Parliament, because it gives the Executive enormous flexibility to amend the provisions that we will consider in schedule 40 to the Bill, and those that we considered in schedule 24 to the 2007 Act.
	Not only do Henry VIII clauses seem to be more prevalent, but they are more widely drafted. Section 97 of the 2007 Act, which implemented schedule 24, gave the Government the power to make an order that may include "incidental, consequential or transitional" provision. This year, in addition to those words, an order may contain a supplemental, transitory or saving provision. The word "supplemental" is particularly vague, and I hope that the Minister will indicate what she means by that. I note also that subsection (6) states:
	"An order under subsection (4) may make different provision for different purposes."
	I confess that I am not sure what that means, and I should be grateful for some elaboration on that point. However, it appears to be extremely broad.

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. To be fair to the Financial Secretary, I must stop trying to put her into embarrassing positions in respect of the Prime Minister's comments, as she had to cope with denials over the losers in the 10p tax rate issue last night. On this occasion, however, I think that the Prime Minister was right that Parliament should be in the centre of things to a much greater extent, and we would like to see that happen in practice rather than just hear the rhetoric, but we see no evidence of it in the Bill. In fact, we see Parliament being marginalised because it will not have the ability to scrutinise or control legislation as it should.
	Let me draw a couple of comparisons with provisions elsewhere in the Bill. Clause 118, for example, deals with penalties for failure to notify and covers equivalent provisions, while clause 119 relates to HMRC decisions, reviews and appeals. That, too, employs similar wording, but unlike clause 117 it requires the affirmative resolution process. Amendments Nos. 3A and 4A would remove the powers. If the Government wish to amend the law in this area, we believe that they should do so through primary legislation and amend schedule 40 accordingly. If HMRC is not ready to do so and is still working its way through existing legislation, that is a further argument for delay, as I said.
	I referred earlier to the Financial Secretary's letter of 24 April 2008 to the shadow Chief Secretary, in which she states that the
	"order-making power contained in clause 117(4) is a reserve power to provide for the smooth transition from the old penalties legislation to the new, allowing for interim rules to apply if necessary when the new legislation comes into force".
	In arguing that it is purely about a smooth transition, the Government's difficulty is that the provisions are much wider than that. For example, there is no sunset clause that would satisfy the concerns identified by the Financial Secretary, but it would at least provide some comfort to Opposition Members who are concerned about these provisions.
	If the Financial Secretary says that she will not use the powers more widely than is set out in her letter, I would not for a moment doubt her integrity on the matter; I fully accept that, but she will not necessarily hold her position for ever. I mean that in a positive way, as I am sure that promotion beckons. I, for one, think she would make an outstanding member of a Labour shadow Cabinet, but Parliament should require greater protection of its rights than the assurances of one particular Minister, however popular.
	There is already an issue about parliamentary scrutiny because these measures are contained in a Finance Bill and it is worth making the point that the other place does not have an opportunity properly to scrutinise these measures for that reason. Given that the provisions greatly affect the balance between the liberties of the individual and the sanctions that the state requires to enforce the law, there is a strong argument for saying that any fundamental review of HMRC's powers, as we saw in last year's Finance Act and this year's Finance Bill, should be contained in separate legislation that is not part of a money Bill. Any such separate Bill could then be examined in the other place. I would be grateful if the Government gave consideration to that point, which has been raised by a number of bodies.
	As well as the constitutional argument, there is a practical point about the way in which the Government seek to amend legislation through statutory instruments. The design principles followed in the review of HMRC's powers are referred to in the consultation document I mentioned earlier, which states that penalties should be
	"visible and set in statute".
	I accept that even if it is amended by statutory instrument, it will still be in statute, but there is a genuine point that if the Government are going to use orders to amend legislation in that way, it will not be "visible" and it will not be as easy for practitioners to go to one or two schedules set out in Acts to work out how it works. Anyone who works on Bills knows how difficult it can be to juggle various legislative instruments to find out the most up-to-date status. There is thus a practical point about trying to achieve legislative change through orders, as it is harder for professional groups to monitor.
	In conclusion, in determining the balance between the rights of individuals—in this case, taxpayers—and the sanctions necessary for the state to enforce its powers, Parliament has a vital role. In the context of income tax on the low paid, we hear that Parliament has taken control of the matter, so we, Parliament, should not surrender our rights to control the penalties imposed on taxpayers either. It would appear that this set of proposals has been somewhat rushed and that the consultation has been inadequate. There is a danger that Parliament will not be able to scrutinise measures made pursuant to schedule 40 as closely as it should. For those reasons, we tabled the amendments and we look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on them.

Jane Kennedy: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this evening, Sir Nicholas. I hope that you will agree that this has been a very good debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) on tabling these amendments. I do not adopt an ideological or partisan line on this area of work, and I have found listening to the concerns that have been raised helpful.
	Before I deal with the amendments, I would like to discuss the background to the clause. As we have had a wider-ranging debate instead of dealing with the two groups independently, it might be helpful if I were to respond more broadly. The clause is part of a larger package of measures in the Bill. It is the latest stage of the review of the powers, deterrents and safeguards of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which is aligning and modernising the powers inherited from the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. Many, if not all, the anomalies in the law result from the piecemeal way in which tax legislation has evolved, particularly in two separate departments. Those differences are confusing for taxpayers, they are costly to administer and they reduce HMRC's ability to ensure that the right tax is paid.
	Our aim is to provide a modern framework of law and practice for HMRC. Penalties are a good example of the wide variety of approaches across different taxes that exist in the law at present. For example, a person filing an incorrect excise duty return may receive a fixed penalty of £250, whereas an understatement on a corporation tax return resulting from the same behaviour could attract a penalty in law of up to 100 per cent. of the tax lost. Neither approach has proved effective or fair, so reform is needed. The review has been commended for its approach, especially the breadth and depth of its consultation and the willingness of HMRC officials to listen and make changes.
	Inevitably, there will be tensions as we seek to ensure that HMRC has appropriate powers to work effectively and that taxpayers have strong safeguards. The hon. Gentleman questioned why we were doing this now, and suggested that it was rushed, as did other hon. Members.
	HMRC inherited different powers from the two former departments. Those were inconsistent in places, which is confusing for taxpayers and imposes undue burdens on them and on the Exchequer. The full benefits of merger cannot be delivered until those powers have been aligned where it makes sense to do so. The way in which the review of powers and safeguards works is to engage stakeholders in an ongoing round of consultations that include formal public documents, workshops and literally dozens of face-to-face meetings.
	Development of the provisions in the Bill has been an iterative process, and stakeholders acknowledge that HMRC has made changes throughout in the light of their views. The January consultations were therefore part of a very long process. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the relevant part of the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultations and I take that very seriously. The code clearly states that we should consult widely throughout the process, allowing a minimum of 12 weeks for written consultation at least once. I assure him and others who have expressed concern that those guidelines have been followed for all the powers clauses in the Bill.
	This is the last stage of an extensive consultation process over two years, involving previous 12-week consultations, dozens of meetings with interested parties and workshops. Knowing that time would be tight in March, HMRC raised key issues in meetings with stakeholders and sought suggestions for improvements. Changes to the draft law were identified and action was taken before the consultation period closed. All written responses were considered in detail and several changes were made in the final few days, as parliamentary draftsmen were about to be commissioned. A full response document was published on 27 March.
	Since 2005, the review has issued 13 consultations and has had meetings with representative bodies and interested parties, as well as exposing draft legislation. That is to be commended as a form of consultation on the Government's intentions. HMRC has worked with representatives of business, the professions and low-income groups on guidance and codes of practice. For this year's penalties changes, HMRC has made particular effort to reach out to more specialist representatives for the particular taxes involved—for example, the oil, alcohol and insurance industries.
	I wish to put on the record my thanks to all those who have given their time to participate in the development of the measures in the Bill, with particular thanks to those who attended meetings with HMRC throughout, which meant that issues could be considered and addressed at an early stage—

Jane Kennedy: I regret giving way and I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Nicholas.
	Clause 117 is about creating a single penalty regime for incorrect tax returns to apply across taxes and duties administered by HMRC. It does that by extending the scope of schedule 24 of the Finance Act 2007 and replacing the current separate and different regimes. The new penalties will be related to the amount of tax understated, the behaviour—as the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) described—giving rise to the understatement and the extent of disclosure by the taxpayer. Much more of the penalty framework will be set out in primary legislation than in the past and, together with appeal rights, which I would have thought would have been singled out for approval, to an independent tribunal against all penalties, that will ensure greater consistency.
	These provisions will repeal the large number of different penalty regimes that are specific to particular taxes and can be confusing for the taxpayer. Amendment No. 1A seeks to postpone applying the new penalties for the additional taxes for 12 months and until the new regime's effectiveness for the main taxes has been evaluated. Such a delay would be a huge missed opportunity to simplify, modernise and align penalties across HMRC, to enable clear deterrent messages to be sent and to move to a more effective and fair response to taxpayer errors.
	Before the new penalties were even put forward for consideration in last year's Finance Bill, HMRC undertook a review of settled cases, to assess the likely impact and effectiveness of the new penalties, and this, combined with international comparisons and the support of analysts and academic research, all helped in developing the overall structure. These penalties are a good example of evidence-based policy making.
	In practice, holding introduction back by 12 months would actually mean three to four years' delay, because meaningful evaluation could not be started until sufficient cases had been worked and completed. As with all proposals in the review of powers, deterrents and safeguards, the penalties reforms have been the subject of extensive consultation since 2006. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales wrote:
	"We think it would be sensible to have a single system of penalties for incorrect returns across the tax system".
	The Chartered Institute of Taxation concurred:
	"We are pleased to note the proposals by HMRC to extend the Finance Act 2007 approach for the main taxes to other taxes, which is in line with our comments in earlier consultations."
	The Association of British Insurers, which is not always in favour of Government proposals, wrote:
	"The benefits of aligning penalties for incorrect returns across taxes outweigh any difficulties."
	The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners said, in relation to inheritance tax:
	"The principle of alignment of penalty regimes is logically sound and appropriate to the taxes that affect trusts, estates and their administration. It is appreciated that alignment of penalties will simplify the structure."
	I could continue with other such positive quotes, but I detect a degree of twitchiness in the Committee about the length of time that I am taking. However, this is an important debate and I wish to respond seriously to the measured points that have been made on occasion by Opposition Members.
	Amendment No. 2A calls for the Treasury order commencing the penalties for the additional taxes to be made under the affirmative procedure. That would be contrary to the normal practice for commencement orders in tax matters, which are usually made under the negative procedure. I can recall that between 1992 and 1997 I made similar points to those made by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire and his colleagues. In those days, a popular way for the Opposition to extend the length of a debate was to make a routine and well worked complaint about the conduct of the Government. We learned the lesson of where the previous Government had got it right in terms of administering legislation, and we implemented that lesson.

Stewart Hosie: I have no ideological or intellectual difficulty with using price to change behaviour, such as the Government want to do with fuel duty, or with using price and changes to vehicle excise duty to encourage car manufacturers, for example, to create low-emission vehicles and to encourage people to buy them. However, I do have difficulty with the implementation of provisions such as those in the Bill, particularly where the consideration of those provisions seems to have taken place without considering the groups of people on whom they may have a disproportionate impact. I suppose that in respect of that argument, there is a similarity with how the Government went about the abolition of the 10p rate, seemingly not understanding the impact that it would have on 20 per cent. of households in the country.
	The groups about whom I am mainly concerned in relation to VED are mainly in agriculture, forestry or similar occupations and they work mainly in remote and rural areas. They tend to be employees on low, agricultural wages, although they may be self-employed; they may be small farmers, for example. Many such people need 4x4 vehicles simply to get to or do their work. However, they are unlikely ever to be able to afford a brand new 4x4 with lower emissions, even if such a vehicle existed. They are therefore unlikely ever to benefit from the lower rates of VED.
	Although the lower rates will apply to vehicles registered before 21 March 2006, many of those who can least afford the additional cash for the higher rate may be forced to find it in future, as vehicles registered after that date, still roadworthy, become affordable——in five, 10 or 15 years' time—to people on low wages in the sectors that I have mentioned. By that time, those vehicles will attract the higher rate.
	Amendment No. 9 would substitute the reduced VED rate for designated working vehicles. It would allow the Treasury to define "working vehicles" by regulation for that purpose and the regulations to be approved by statutory instrument. That would allow scrutiny but enable the definitions to be done quickly. Amendment No. 10, an associated amendment, would allow the changes brought about by amendment No. 9 to come into force on a day that the Treasury may appoint, without a vote in the House, to ensure that they can be introduced speedily.
	I said that "working vehicles" would be defined by the Treasury, but I envisage that they would include the vehicles of such people as farmers, particularly hill farmers, and those in associated sectors in remote and rural areas. I hope that some of the comments that I shall cite, from the National Farmers Union Scotland and others, demonstrate not only the desirability but the need for such a measure.
	It is worth putting it on the record that many of the people affected by the higher rates of VED, who live in remote rural areas, are already paying very high prices on very low wages, not least for fuel and energy. I think particularly of fuel—diesel is routinely hitting £1.30 a litre.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in every regard, including his comments about Sutherland. Crofters are defined in a number of ways; there are Acts that define crofting. Crofting is employment, but in a sense it is also a way of life. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the vehicle is not only necessary for the job of crofting; given the location of some crofts, it is also absolutely essential to get to the front door from what passes as the main road.
	I turn to the support for the measure that I propose, or one similar to it. Jim McLaren, president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, said:
	"The Chancellor is clearly trying to penalise those driving big cars in city centres, but hikes in excise duty...will also be penalising those who have no alternative. Particularly after the dismal year faced by many farmers in 2007, an extra 'showroom' price hike on what is an essential business tool is another slap in the face."
	Anna Davies of the National Union of Farmers Scotland put it more clearly when she said only two weeks ago:
	"The NFUS has long stressed that 4x4 vehicles are essential for farmers and changing the tax bands to penalise more heavily polluting vehicles will penalise farmers who have no choice but to use these types of vehicles. The key for farmers is band G. An increase in the band G rate vehicle excise duty will have a detrimental impact on farm businesses, since farmers are not able to purchase a vehicle that has lower CO2 emissions and is still able to do the job required of it around the farm."
	When she sums up, I hope that the Minister will comment on that technical matter. The NFUS says that farmers have no alternative, and that they simply cannot purchase vehicles with lower emissions that are able to do the job on the farm.
	In addition, I hope that the Minister will be a little more generous than she was when she responded recently to a senior Member of the House. In answer to an oral question, she said that he was
	"the epitome of Range Rover man."—[ Official Report, 24 April 2008; Vol. 474, c. 1449.]
	I shall spare the hon. Gentleman's blushes, Sir Nicholas, but that answer suggests that the Government believe that all the people who drive 4x4s—be they brand new Range Rovers or a beat up old Land Rover on a hill farm—are really just versions of the same person, and that they drive the same cars for the same reasons. That, of course, is wholly and utterly wrong.
	The National Gamekeepers Association has said that it is worried about the impact of increased 4x4 taxes on what it considers to be essential rural work. Alex Hogg, chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, said that four-wheel drive vehicles were
	"essential tools for Scotland's gamekeepers, and rarely travel further than rough tracks or estate roads. Gamekeepers use these vehicles for 365 days of the year, and like farmers we simply couldn't do our work without them. We are concerned that an increase in taxation would not only be unjustified in our case, it would also add an extra burden on the sector which is already under serious pressure."
	Once again, I hope that when she sums up the Minister will say something about the essential nature of 4x4 vehicles, and that she will take on board the assertion by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association that they
	"rarely travel further than rough tracks or estate roads."
	They are clearly working vehicles, doing precisely what they are designed for. The people who use them do not earn big money: many are self employed and bear the full burden of the costs, and I hope that the Minister will take that into consideration in her reply.
	I want to say something about two other small groups of people—one, the employees of Scotland's five ski resorts, is very small indeed. They are a tiny group in the big picture, and people such as ski lift operators earn very low wages, but they are essential to keeping the ski resorts operating. They also ensure that nearby resorts and towns remain tourist destinations for 12 months a year.
	Such destinations are sited in parts of Scotland where the economy is very fragile. I fear that the unintended consequence of the fact that the Government did not consider the people employed in Scotland's winter sports sector will be that those people's lives are made harder.

Alan Reid: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) is right. The economies in the remote parts of the United Kingdom are suffering greatly and are very fragile. Many of the businesses in those areas—farming, crofting, forestry and so on—need vehicles that can go off the road, and often the same vehicle is used for business purposes as for going into the village. Those businesses therefore need a reduced rate of VED.
	I am sympathetic to the amendment, but on the condition that the regulations to which it refers would have to be very tightly drawn to ensure that they are not abused. We would not, for example, want company cars, or even the First Minister's car, to be defined as working vehicles. The regulations would have to apply only in a rural situation and only to cars that are essential to the running of a rural business.
	It is not a question of creating a precedent. The hon. Gentleman already referred to existing precedents: police cars and cars used in the health service are exempt, as well as many others. There is a long list of exemptions already, and I urge the Government to accept the amendment so that there can be consultation on the regulations. Regulations should be drawn up that allow the reduced rate to be applied to vehicles that are essential to the operation of a small rural business. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to rural business by accepting the amendment.

Michael Weir: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman says, and I accept his point about the principle of VED differential for carbon emissions. However, another principle is important; we should take into account the needs of rural and remote areas. If we do not do so, we will undermine the effort to get everyone to sign up to meeting climate change targets. Despite the principle concerning emissions, the hon. Gentleman is right. We agree with his point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie).

Stewart Hosie: The definition of working vehicle has been left to the Treasury to ensure that it is not too widely drawn, not least because the Treasury will want to maximise the revenue yield. I am sure that it will be sympathetic enough to draw it sufficiently widely to cover those who will be affected by the changes.

Mark Hoban: No, I have not got a 4x4, either.
	I sympathise with the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie), who made a persuasive case for his amendment. However, we are working in a matrix of ways to determine the exemption that owners of such vehicles will apply for. Part of that is about location and about what is rural and remote—no part of Fareham is rural and remote, which makes things easy.
	That matrix is about employment, too. The hon. Gentleman specified some occupations—agriculture, forestry and people working in ski resorts—but it would not take very long to come up with some more suggestions. What about a rural shopkeeper, who might use his 4x4 to load up at a cash and carry? Where do we draw the line in defining the occupations that should be supported through the exemption?
	The third element to the matrix is the type of vehicle that will be used. I understand as well as anybody that some vehicles will be seen as a lifestyle choice or fashion statement in one context and a lifeline in another context. The context will depend on where a particular a four-wheel drive vehicle is, who is using it and what its purpose is.
	That makes it quite difficult to say how we should characterise the types of vehicles that should qualify for the exemption. My concern is that accepting the amendment would put us at risk of having to produce detailed and complex regulations, which would create uncertainty in the minds of taxpayers. They would be expensive to comply with because, when applying for a new VED disc, people would have to provide not only valid MOT and insurance certificates, but proofs of residence, occupation, and whether the job was part or full-time. The process would create a burden for people applying for exemptions, and it would not be as straightforward as the hon. Member for Dundee, East suggested.

Angela Eagle: We have had an important, if short, debate about something that has an impact, especially in rural areas. We heard some arguments in support of the exemption proposed, with perfectly reasonable intent, by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) through amendments Nos. 9 and 10. However, we also heard, not least from the hon. Members for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and for Taunton (Mr. Browne), why it is difficult to draw a clear line to produce an exemption that would achieve the aims of the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
	I welcome the acceptance of the principle that price should be used to influence behaviour. That is an important point of agreement throughout the Committee, and it is good to find points of agreement in such debates before homing in on matters on which there might not be 100 per cent. agreement. I recognise the points made by the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) about the difficulties experienced in their areas and the pressures on rural businesses and industries.
	As the hon. Member for Fareham said, it is important to try to get any exemptions on duties right, be that VED or anything else, and to ensure that they can be defended and maintained consistently and coherently. Although the hon. Member for Taunton is supporting the amendment—and taking quite a lot on trust—he made similar points about the practicalities of any of the exemptions suggested. There are some 4x4 vehicles in bands E and F. We hope that the changes to VED rates in this Bill and those that are signalled for future Finance Bills will lead to the introduction of new 4x4 vehicles in lower bands.
	Let me answer the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Dundee, East, especially that about mountain rescue. First, we have been considering the tax treatment for mountain rescue vehicles, but there is an issue with charity law. Government policy on the tax treatment of charities is neutral between them, and we would not want to pursue a policy that appeared to favour one charitable cause over another. The charitable status of mountain rescue organisations therefore presents the Government with potential difficulties, as a specific VED exemption would appear to favour them over other charities. Some mountain rescue vehicles that are registered as ambulances are exempt, but there is a difficulty with other such vehicles, which we are considering whether we can get around. That is one reason why we have not been able to announce a complete exemption for mountain rescue vehicles.
	The hon. Member for Dundee, East discussed a potential exemption, helpfully leaving the relevant definition to the Treasury. It would be difficult to define the exemption in a way that would achieve his aim. His amendment would apply the VED alternative fuel discount to working vehicles, which are undefined in his amendment, but the discount currently applies equally to vehicles that are used primarily either for private travel or for business activity. Adding the condition that only working vehicles that are alternatively fuelled qualify for the reduced rate would undermine the incentive for other vehicles and would unnecessarily complicate the tax system.
	We also believe that the compliance and administrative costs of such a change would be considerable, as the hon. Member for Fareham sensibly pointed out. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency would need to verify that a vehicle was a working vehicle, which would be difficult to verify on an individual basis and even more difficult to police. Working vehicles such as agricultural vehicles are already exempt from VED, and there is a separate exemption for vehicles, including four-wheel drives, that are used mainly on the land. That exemption is available where a vehicle is used only on a public road for a distance of no more than 1.5 km to pass between different areas of land that are occupied by the same person. So, there are already exemptions, which could be policed and guarded more effectively than the very open exemption that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) was sympathetic and I entirely agree with him that the regulations should be tightly drawn. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) was sympathetic in parts, but he taught us all the important lesson that one should not speak when one has very little to say. He was followed by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), who actually made the speech that the hon. Member for Taunton should have made. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) spoke about difficulties in defining the matrix and he quite rightly drew a distinction between lifeline and lifestyle—a very good way to put it, but I was disappointed that he followed that up by finding problems rather than solutions to what are very real problems in many parts of the country.
	That brings me to the Minister. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at what can be done for mountain rescue, and I appreciate that. There is, however, a singular lack of pragmatism in seeing the equality of treatment between charities as important, yet being unable since last year's discussions to find a way to help lifeline 4x4s for people setting off in mountains in the middle of winter to rescue people and save lives. In short, having listened to what the Minister said, she was seeing difficulties in the solution rather than seeking a solution to the difficulties faced in many remote and rural areas—difficulties that will be intensified not just by the burden of high fuel costs, the burden of high inflation and the burden of low wages, but by the additional higher vehicle excise duty charge on essential vehicles. With that, I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but I shall press the amendment to a vote.

Mark Hoban: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. In fact, just this morning I had an e-mail from one of my constituents who was concerned about the increased tax take that the Government were getting from the increase in petrol prices at the pump. I am conscious that that is outside the scope of amendment No. 6, so I cannot dwell on the issue at as much length as I might have liked to have done in other circumstances.
	The consequence for many families is that the rate of VED that they have to pay on their car will go up. An analysis of the changes indicates that VED rates will rise on 88 per cent. of cars. The percentage increase on a Nissan Micra is actually greater than that on a Porsche Cayenne. We are starting to see a series of increases in differentials that gives rise to some of the comments mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) earlier.
	The problem is whether people see the increases in VED as simply a tax increase or a legitimate way to tackle carbon emissions. In the evidence given to the Treasury Committee in its inquiry on the 2008 Budget, John Whiting from PricewaterhouseCoopers commented, in the context of the environmental measures:
	"What is lacking is a clear statement, a clear framework, by Government which says...'Are we raising money by environmental duties or are we changing behaviour?'"
	The CBI said that the Government were approaching environmental taxes in "completely the wrong way". It argued that the primary aim of environmental taxes should be to change behaviour and not to raise revenue.
	In that context, it is important that there is a mechanism that enables people to measure the behavioural changes that take place as a consequence of the changes announced in the Budget. That is what amendment No. 6 seeks to do, by asking the independent committee on climate change that will be established by the Climate Change Bill to produce a report, not later than Budget 2009, on the carbon emission savings resulting from changes to the vehicle excise duty in this Bill.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to the issues. We have said that we support environmental taxes being used to change behaviour, but unlike the Government whom he now supports, we believe that those additional tax revenues should be used to reduce the burden of taxes on families rather than simply to increase tax revenue. That is part of the problem at the heart of the Budget. We are seeing an increase in vehicle excise duty that will simply fill the Treasury coffers, so people can be much more cynical about environmental taxes. They do not see them as ways of changing behaviour, but simply as a way in which the Government can fill the black hole that is opening up in their finances. The hon. Gentleman is right that we should see environmental taxes that help to change behaviour. That is why we want the independent committee on climate change to report on the impact of the amendments.
	As I was about to say before the hon. Gentleman intervened, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) tabled a question to the Exchequer Secretary to ask what the impact of the VED reforms would be on emissions. The Treasury estimated that by 2020 emissions would be reduced by 160,000 tonnes, which is less than one tenth of 1 per cent. of vehicle emissions. It would appear that the way in which the changes have been designed has led to a situation where the change of behaviour is estimated to be minimal. That is the problem and it is why people are becoming concerned about whether the taxes are genuine attempts to reduce vehicle emissions or whether they are seen simply as a way of raising revenue for the Exchequer.
	It is important, as part of creating a sense of trust about the motives behind the tax increases and ensuring that there is some transparency about their impact, that we should ensure that they are independently reported on. I believe that amendment No. 6 would deliver that objective. All Members who are serious about increasing transparency on climate change and want to see the independent committee make a major contribution to the debate should support the amendment. I hope that they will support us in the Lobby tonight.

Rob Marris: As I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) gave some figures on transport CO2 emissions and household CO2 emissions. The figures that he gave are almost the reverse of the figures in the Red Book—although perhaps he was right. He said that 25 million households produce 27 per cent. of CO2 emissions in the UK, which was double the amount produced by cars. According to paragraph 6.19 on page 94 of the Red Book, CO2 emissions from transport account for 28 per cent. of UK CO2 emissions. Paragraph 6.63 on page 103 states that households account for 14 per cent. of UK CO2 emissions, albeit that households account for a quarter of energy consumption.
	In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) said that constituents will ask what they are getting. On one level, he has a point. The changes are designed to change behaviour, yet between 1995 and 2005 the average CO2 emissions of new vehicles purchased in the UK fell by about 1 per cent. a year. CO2 emissions overall in the UK this century have increased rather than decreased. However, the amendment considers only—this is a criticism—the causes of climate change. Some hon. Members will know that one thing that upsets me about the tone of public debate in this Chamber and elsewhere is that we do not look sufficiently at the effects of climate change. I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's figures about the tax take from vehicle excise duty going up markedly from £1.9 billion in 2006-07 to £2.9 billion in 2008-09. That amount of money should mean that our constituents—and constituents around the country—will potentially get protection from the effects of climate change. The part of the equation that we seldom discuss in the House is adaptation, which is the sort of thing that the amendment does not address.
	I have referred to the effects of climate change, and the Association of British Insurers estimates that last summer's flooding, principally in England, cost £3 billion. That money effectively comes from almost every householder in Britain, because the insurance premiums of all households, not just those affected by flooding, go up. The Government have massively increased the spending on flood control, both inland and with coastal defences and so on. That is the sort of thing that VED money is being spent on, albeit that it is not hypothecated, and it is something that our constituents are getting from this green tax. They are getting something that deals with adaptation—the effects side of the equation of climate change; it is not just about causes.
	The hon. Member for Fareham went on to say that 88 per cent. of vehicles will pay more. I do not doubt him on that figure. I warn the Government that, next year, we will risk another 10 per cent. kind of debate. This coming year, a vehicle in band F, which emits perhaps 201 g of CO2 per kilometre, will pay £210 in vehicle excise duty. From 2009-10, it will be in band K, paying £300 in vehicle excise duty. That is a £90 or 42.86 per cent. increase. A vehicle in band E, which emits 181 g of CO2 per kilometre, will pay £170 in 2008-09. That vehicle will go into band J from 2009-10, and it will pay £260 in vehicle excise duty. That is an increase of 52.94 per cent.
	The difficulty with those increases is that, to most of our constituents, they are retrospective. As I understand the Red Book—the Exchequer Secretary can correct me if I am wrong—table A.8a on page 122 is headed, "VED bands and rates for cars registered after 1 March 2001". It relates not to new vehicles that are bought with those CO2 emissions from next year, but to vehicles that are already in the fleet. So someone who bought a new car in band F in 2002 will experience a 42.86 per cent. increase in their vehicle excise duty for the very same vehicle—or, in the other example that I gave, a 52.94 per cent. increase. My constituents will regard that, quite understandably, as a retrospective tax increase; they will not take kindly to it, and the Government need to think again.

Angela Eagle: We have had an interesting debate about vehicle excise duty rates. Various Members on both sides of the Committee have made important points and observations about the general approach. The amendment calls for an estimate of the carbon savings that result from the changes to VED contained in the clause, and for that to be audited by the independent committee on climate change, which is being created by the Climate Change Bill. We hope that when that is approved by both Houses and is on the statute book it will enable us to make progress towards our carbon accounting, which we have discussed in relation to more than one amendment this evening.
	UK vehicle excise duty rates are set at current rates for good reasons—to raise revenue to fund essential services, and to help to achieve our environmental obligations and objectives. The changes to vehicle excise duty in 2008-09, which were announced in Budget 2007, further sharpen the environmental signal to motorists to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles and continue to support the development of the low-carbon market. The rate for the most polluting cars in band G increases by £100 to £400 in 2008-09, whereas the rate for low-carbon band B cars is frozen.
	In deciding VED rates the Government take account of all relevant economic, social and environmental factors, including proportionality and fairness to motorists to ensure that there are appropriate signals across the entire system. The vehicle excise duty system is designed to signal, at purchase, that the more polluting the vehicle, the more VED will be payable and the higher its fuel costs will be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) pointed out, table 7.2 of the 2007 Budget sets out the environmental effect of the VED changes announced in that Budget. However, the climate change committee's role is not to audit Government policy, but to advise on technical issues, such as setting carbon budgets and the level of the 2050 carbon emissions target, which will be needed if we are to stabilise climate change.
	Although the carbon savings from VED changes are initially small, they will increase over time as the number of low-carbon cars is forecast to increase significantly. In addition, VED is part of a package of measures that support the European Union 2012 proposal to reduce average new car CO2 emissions to 130 g per kilometre, which could save as much as an additional 800 tonnes [Official Report, 30 April 2008, Vol. 475, c. 6MC.] of CO2 per year by 2020. Estimating the amounts of CO2 saved merely through VED rates is a tiny part of the entire picture. It is easy to argue that increases in tax achieve only tiny savings in CO2 emissions, but that is not the whole story, although some Conservative Members are trying to make out that it is.
	The change in respect of CO2 emissions and engine technology was pointed out by Professor Julia King in her important report, which was published alongside this year's Budget. She said that a 100 g target was achievable by 2020. In the 2008 Budget, the Government confirmed that they will push the EU Commission to include a longer-term target of 100 g per kilometre by 2020 in its proposals for reducing vehicle emissions.
	Professor King has also concluded that a typical driver can reduce their fuel bills and CO2 emissions by 25 per cent. by choosing the most efficient vehicle in the preferred class. That is why this year's Budget contained announcements that further increase the VED signals that aim to encourage people to move from high-emission to low-emission cars; confusingly, however, they are not in this Finance Bill, but for debate in next year's Finance Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West also read out some of the increases planned not for 2008-09, but for 2009-10 and 2010-11. I suppose that he is entitled to consider the very high emitting levels in the top bands, including the six new bands that have been created. However, in the interests of fairness he should also have pointed out that 55 per cent. of drivers will be better off or no worse off as a result of the changes announced in this year's Budget. Their VED bands will be frozen or go down.
	The changes to the VED bands are designed to strengthen the signals so that people move from the top-emitting class of car to lower-emitting cars. I am thinking first of purchasers, but the changes are also designed to give those who design and produce new cars further incentives to produce more cars that qualify for the lower bands of VED.

Angela Eagle: Thank you, Mrs. Heal. I want to emphasise the Government's reasons for opposing amendment No. 6. We do not believe that it is appropriate to use the independent committee on climate change to audit the Government. As we move forward, it is important that we follow the King report's recommendation about making use of new technology. For example, we can ensure that better engine technology reduces emissions if we use VED to send the proper signals to motorists. By the time that the announcements in this year's Budget come into force, 15 of the 30 best selling cars in 2006 will be better off in VED terms, while nine will be no worse off. That means that people will be able to migrate to lower-emissions cars in the same class.
	We also hope that these tax signals and changes will result, reasonably quickly, in the development of 4x4s in lower VED bands so that people can not only drive the class of car that they want but have lower-emission cars, thereby ensuring that over time we will be able to make considerable carbon savings.
	I wish to emphasise that the Government will vote against amendment No. 6 and hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Charles Walker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this Adjournment debate on support for the victims of rape. Quite understandably, society is not comfortable talking about rape, which is a truly horrendous crime against the individual. Rape is a violent assault committed by the strong against the weak. It is brutal subjugation. Throughout history, rape has been used as a weapon of war and humiliation. I am honoured and privileged to have the chance to discuss it tonight in this important Chamber.
	I would like to start with one statistic. Women in this country have a greater chance of being raped or having a violent sexual assault committed against them than they do of contracting breast cancer. Rape is an all too common occurrence in our society.
	The consequences of rape are truly horrendous. Women who have been raped often see their families destroyed. They end up getting divorced—women leaving their husbands, or their husbands leaving them—as they struggle to come to terms with the ordeal they experienced or as their husbands cannot face the fact that they were unable to protect and defend their wives. Many women who are raped end up self-harming, and there are higher rates of addiction and depression and other mental illnesses. The consequences are long lasting and traumatic and all too often result in women taking their own lives. It is estimated that the cost to society of each rape is £73,000. I do not want to reduce this debate to monetary matters, but that is a huge sum.
	The statistics for rape are shocking. It is estimated that 90 per cent. of rapes are never reported to the police. Of the 10 per cent. that are reported, 80 per cent. never make it to court. Of those that make it to court, only one in four end up in a conviction. What do these numbers mean? They mean that in only one in 200 rape cases does the perpetrator end up being convicted of committing the crime. This is almost a crime without consequence for perpetrators, and we in this place must change that.
	Of course, one of the concerns often thrown up is that false allegations are made, but academic research proves that false allegations in rape are no more prevalent than in any other assault or crime against the individual. Too often now, women come up against barristers who say that they gave consent. In the issue of rape, the woman is not only the victim, but the witness. That is a peculiarity of this crime.
	Why do so few women come forward to report rapes? First, there is the shame. Many women do not feel able to talk to their husbands or the people they love. Many women do not feel able to talk to their GP, so they suffer in silence. The reporting process is undoubtedly an ordeal. In the immediate aftermath of a rape, many women are subject to a forensic examination by a male doctor because no female doctor is present. As one woman told me,
	"You've had your power taken away from you once, and then when you have the medical examination, you have your power taken away from you a second time."
	We in this place must make sure that female doctors are on hand to conduct forensic examinations.
	The woman is then subjected to police questioning. I do not want this debate to turn into an attack on the police; they do a very difficult job, and every police officer whom I know wants to increase rape conviction rates. They have to ask hard, searching questions, because they know what will happen to the woman once she gets to court. Many women find that process humiliating and difficult to handle emotionally, however.
	Women face value judgments when reporting rape. Their lifestyles are called into question. They might be asked whether they are mentally ill now or have ever suffered from a mental illness, or how many sexual partners they have had, or whether they are a substance abuser or have ever been a substance abuser. They might be asked how many children they have had with different husbands or partners, or whether they are a prostitute or have been involved in the sex industry. All those questions are designed to undermine the legitimacy of the victim, who is also treated as the witness.
	In the few cases that reach court, the Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor often receives the papers only on the day the case is due to be heard. The CPS works extremely hard, but because it is overworked, the prosecutor receives the paper then, whereas the defence lawyer has had months to prepare his case. That case revolves around destroying the credibility of the victim, who is also the witness—it is quite simply character assassination.
	We in this House desperately need to increase the number of convictions for rape, because one in 200 is not good enough. Things have gone backwards since 1975, when there were seven convictions in every 200 cases, although that was still a pathetic figure. I know that everyone in this House and every decent person wants the conviction rate to increase.
	Women who have been raped need emotional support and they need people to talk to, which is why I am so concerned about what is happening to this country's rape crisis centres. Since 1984, their number has reduced from 68 to 38. Many counties, such as Lincolnshire, are not served by a single rape crisis centre; indeed, Lincolnshire's nearest centre is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), which is in Cambridgeshire. At this point, I would like to pay tribute to the  Lincolnshire Echo, which has been campaigning on this issue.
	Of the existing 38 rape crisis centres, eight face an uncertain future, as they have not secured funding for this financial year. The centres face other problems too. Volunteers who want to be working with women now spend most of their time chasing the money that they need to fund their rape crisis centre's operations. The centres need £80,000 a year to provide a basic service, although all of us in this House believe that they should receive a lot more. Volunteers are spending their time filling in forms, rather than working with clients.
	Again, I do not want my next point to be party political. Money has traditionally come from local authorities, but over the past few years more and more of the money that they receive has been ring-fenced for specific projects, so much less discretionary money is available to fund these important services. Let us remember that rape crisis centres take calls from general practitioners' surgeries, community mental health teams, school counsellors, Samaritans, the probation service and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. All those organisations have their own funding problems, but they are all funded to far higher levels than rape crisis centres. I would argue that if such organisations use rape crisis centres, they should make a larger contribution towards their funding.
	Who do rape crisis centres help and support? They support the victims of rape—many women who were raped years beforehand suddenly find the courage or the will to go to a centre—and the victims of child abuse, who may have been abused decades before. The centres provide a hugely valuable and important service, which allows women to rediscover their self-confidence and build their future with their family.
	I shall wind up, because I would like to bring in my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, but I should say that I am deeply concerned that waiting lists for rape crisis centres—for a one-on-one discussion with a counsellor—can be as long as three months. The lists are closed in many parts of the country, and people simply cannot get on one, which seems both amazing and wrong.
	I am delighted that the Government have recognised the problems and put in place £1 million of additional emergency funding. I know that the Leader of the House, who is also the Minister for Women and Equality, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), has championed the cause, along with the  New Statesman and Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). As a civilised society, we need to ensure that the victims of this awful, invasive crime get the support that they need to put their lives back on track.
	A couple of people said to me, "Gosh, Charles, why are you talking about rape? You're a man and it's not really a subject for men, is it?" Well, I am a father, a son and a husband. I can only imagine what it is like for the family of a woman who has been raped. I hope that it never happens to my wife, my daughter or my mother. I hope that it never happens to any family member of anyone here tonight, but if it does, please God let us have the services in place to ensure that it is an ordeal that they can come through.

Stewart Jackson: I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and congratulate him on securing this important debate. I also thank him for his generosity in allowing me to make a few brief remarks.
	I draw the House's attention to the valuable work of the Peterborough rape crisis centre, which is a registered charity that has helped thousands of women and girls in the Greater Peterborough area since its inception in 1983. It costs around £40,000 a year to run, and the staff and I are grateful for the funding of some £20,000 that it has received from the victims fund in the last financial year. Unfortunately, it has failed in a bid for further funding in the future, and we are fighting hard to secure funding for it for the next couple of years.
	I also welcome the work that the Government have done on a bipartisan basis through the sexual violence action plan published in April last year. The funding has enabled the employment of a development worker, and 15 key volunteers have also helped to deliver an important service for my constituents.
	We need to think about three-year funding for such work. A funding regime that lasts for only 12 months breeds instability and does not allow worthwhile organisations the opportunity to plan ahead for the work that they need to do. My hon. Friend is right that this issue is not about the financial aspects, but we need to ensure cost-effectiveness in the collaborative work between different agencies, whether it be the police or primary care trusts. If we boil the issue down and take the emotional aspect away, rape costs society. It has an emotional cost, but it also costs society in mental health problems and substance abuse, and other burdens on the criminal justice system and primary care.
	We need to review and refresh local area agreements, and I hope that the Minister will address that point when he winds up. We also need to look afresh at public service agreements in respect of this issue, especially PSA23 on making communities safer and PSA24 on criminal justice.
	I thank the Minister who will respond to the debate and the Minister for the East of England, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), who is also in her place and who has been sympathetic to my case, as has the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). We are grateful, but we need funding, as well as a commitment to prevent any further closures of these vital facilities, especially in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the Government recognise the importance of the work of such centres, and that the funding will follow.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) for the considered way in which they have put their case on this important issue. It is as well to reflect also on the presence of the hon. Members for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) for the debate. The Minister for Equality, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), is also in her place. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) and for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who cannot speak in the debate, are also interested in the subject.
	It is important when we discuss such issues and challenges for our society that we do so in a measured and responsible way, as we can then make progress. There will sometimes be arguments and debate between us on various issues, not only across the Chamber but within parties. However, this is a hugely important issue that affects society. Those who watch our debates from the outside will see that, reflect on it and see that Parliament is at its best, in many respects, when dealing with such an important issue.
	Rape is about violence. The hon. Member for Broxbourne mentioned the fact that men who speak out on these issues somehow get the reaction, "Why would you speak about that?" I often mention the subject as the Minister with responsibility for tackling sexual violence and domestic violence, as well as the associated issues of forced marriage and honour-based violence. More men are speaking out on the subject rather than leaving it to be seen as a women's issue, with the hon. Member for Epping Forest or my hon. Friend the Minister for Equality being left to speak out. We all need to speak out. Frankly, the more men who speak up and speak out, the better. It will offer a way forward and accelerate our progress. The hon. Gentleman made an extremely important point, which will, I hope, enable us to move forward.
	Let me set out some of the things that the Government are trying to do and some of the progress that we have made. The messages that are given out about reporting rape are often negative: the conviction rate is low, or support services are seen to be failing victims. I agree that we need to make it clear that more needs to be done. Indeed, both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have pointed out some of the areas where that needs to happen. However, it is important to make it clear that we are making progress in tackling rape and supporting victims. It has been given a priority like never before. An extensive programme of work is under way to improve the situation.
	The Government have set out three main actions to tackle rape and sexual violence, which were included in the cross-Government action plan on sexual violence and abuse that was published last year. Those actions are: to increase access to health and support services for victims, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Peterborough; to improve the response of the criminal justice system so that victims are confident to come forward and report an offence and see it through to conviction, which were all mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxbourne; and to prevent sexual violence in the first place. I know that the hon. Member for Epping Forest and my hon. Friend the Minister for Equality have often talked about that subject at great length. It is not only about doing something when rape has occurred but about trying to prevent it from occurring in the first place.
	We have, we believe, made some progress. As I have said, on 18 February, the Home Secretary published a three-year action plan for tackling violence. It identified priority areas of work, one of which was sexual violence. In addition, the Government's public service agreements for 2008 to 2011 on making communities safer and justice for all set out our commitment to prioritise action to tackle the most serious violent and sexual offences at a local and national level. As many hon. Members will know, progress is being made.
	If the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Peterborough want to discuss the issues about PSAs, local area agreements and how to make progress on the subject, I am willing to meet them. I am happy for us to meet and discuss the subject in more detail in the Home Office. If the hon. Member for Epping Forest or any other hon. Members want to meet to discuss the matter, I am perfectly happy to do so.
	Over the past four years, the Government have spent more than £10 million on supporting the victims of sexual violence, in addition to funding provided locally. Over the past year alone, we have spent £3 million to extend the network of sexual assault referral centres to ensure that victims receive medical care and counselling and can assist the police investigation through a forensic examination. There are currently 19 SARCs, and a further 17 are under development. That is a hugely important reform, and I am sure that Opposition Members have visited some of those centres—indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Equality has done so—to see the outstanding work that goes on in them. We have also piloted independent sexual violence advisers in 38 areas to provide advocacy and support for victims. We have also provided funding to voluntary organisations that support the victims of sexual violence.
	I want also to mention rape crisis centres. Many people are concerned about the current situation whereby some rape crisis centres are facing closure. The Government are working closely with rape crisis centres to identify what more can be done to assist in increasing their stability. A stakeholder working group, which includes members of Rape Crisis England and Wales, has been set up to look specifically at the issue and will report very soon. We will consider its recommendations urgently. In the meantime, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Women and Equality announced on 18 March an emergency fund of over £1 million to prevent immediate closures.

Vernon Coaker: I will have a look at that issue. I give that undertaking to the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Minister for Equality has heard that as well, and if there is a problem, we will try to resolve the issue. However, the Government believe that support services for victims are not solely the responsibility of the voluntary sector and that statutory agencies have a responsibility to provide adequate services.
	We have therefore given a commitment to channel substantial resources into sexual assault referral centres and independent sexual violence advisers and have core funded the umbrella organisations—Rape Crisis England and Wales and the Survivors Trust—to help to build the capacity and sustainability of their member organisations. We are also working with the sector to develop commissioning guidance for primary care trusts and local authorities, as well as service standards for the sexual violence sector. Establishing a set of agreed standards for services is key to encouraging local funders to support local sexual violence services.
	Supporting victims, however, is not just about ensuring that they can access support services. It is also important to demonstrate to victims that work is being done to ensure that offenders cannot get away with it. At present, the conviction rate for rape is still too low. As hon. Members know, 5.7 per cent. of all rapes reported to the police result in conviction. So the message that victims hear at the moment may still be, "Is it worth reporting a rape?" I want to change that. That is not easy. The biggest problem that we face is that rape is still under-reported.
	The British crime survey for 2005-06 said that more than a third of those who reported being a victim of a serious sexual assault told no one. However, we are working to increase the likelihood that a person who is raped will report it to the police. Some 6,628 rapes were reported in 1997, and 14,443 rapes were reported in 2006-07. That is therefore an improvement, but too many of those reported cases still drop out before getting to court. That is part of the reason for the low conviction rate, and we are working extremely hard on it.
	The real problem in many respects is that the attrition rate from reporting to getting a case to court is very high, and all of us need to work to improve that. Of those reported, 2,567 cases did make it to court, and 34 per cent. of them resulted in a conviction. That figure is still far too low, but it is the highest conviction rate for 10 years. The more we get that message across, the greater the confidence a rape victim will have in coming forward. In other words, it is important to say that for those cases that get to court, the conviction rate is increasing. The problem is in moving from a report to a trial. That is the issue that we need to address; we need improvements in that respect, as well as in relation to the reporting of rape.
	We have made changes to the criminal justice system, so that when a victim does come forward, he or she—it is sometimes a he, but generally a she—will be supported. I have already mentioned sexual assault referral centres and independent sexual violence advisers; we have also introduced specially trained officers and specialist rape prosecutors, and we have improved training and guidance for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and barristers.
	We have supported police forces in developing action plans to implement the recommendations of "Without Consent", a report on the investigation and prosecution of rape, published in January 2007. We have established a specialist rape prosecutions delivery unit within the Crown Prosecution Service. We have established a rape performance group to manage local performance on tackling rape. Concerns about performance are raised with the relevant chief constable and chief Crown prosecutor, and operational support is provided to areas by a joint team of experts from the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers. The group reports quarterly to the National Criminal Justice Board. The rape champion at ACPO level is the assistant commissioner, John Yates, who has done an excellent job in trying to push that work forward.
	We have introduced a range of special measures in court to assist victims in giving evidence, including the use of screens and live links. We have also introduced a statutory code of practice for victims of rape, entitling them to an enhanced service from the criminal justice system. We are pushing in each of those areas to try to improve performance. In a few weeks' time, there is to be a conference on the performance of the criminal justice system with respect to rape, which will enable us to see what more we can do on the issue.
	Finally, I would like to mention the work that we are doing to prevent rape and sexual violence. Many hon. Members will be aware of a survey published in 2005 by Amnesty International that showed that a third of people in the UK believe that a woman is partially or totally responsible for being raped if she has been flirting or drinking, or has worn revealing clothing. Recent research entitled "Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap" indicates that little has changed. Addressing those attitudes must start in the education system, and here in the Chamber, with me. I know that all hon. Members present will agree that that statistic is an absolute disgrace; we have to challenge that attitude and get it changed.
	As I say, addressing such attitudes must start in the education system. All secondary schools are required to deliver sex and relationship education, and by the end of 2009 we expect all schools to qualify as "healthy schools", meaning that specific standards must be met for personal, social and health education. We must also continue to challenge the behaviour of the minority of men who think that it is acceptable to have sex without consent.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Broxbourne for initiating the debate, and to all hon. Members who played a part in it, either through their presence or by making a contribution. We are talking about an extremely important area of work. The Government have made considerable progress in many respects, but we know that there is much more to be done; we will rise to the challenge and will do it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.